Demand for more regulation by FAA

[jsaxton 0]

Thanks Chris

[livendive 8]

Quote

Not just because they had lots of people on board when they had a single accident.

Didn't you *just* call out last fall's 208 crash specifically because it had more than 1 person on board? Either lots of people being in a single accident is relevant or it's not. Which is it?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[737driver 0]

Dave... they work the accident rate out by numbers (i think)

The 208 was doing something illegal by having those people on board..

Two different things.

Your profile states your an instructor.. this is kinda scary as your attitude towards safety seems to be lacking..

You justify not bringing in safety because it would increase the jump price... not good not good

[livendive 8]

Quote

Your profile states your an instructor.. this is kinda scary as your attitude towards safety seems to be lacking..

You justify not bringing in safety because it would increase the jump price... not good not good

My attitude towards safety is just fine. I am a *skydiving* instructor. The changes you propose would potentially make me neither a skydiver nor an instructor. As I said, I'm absolutely in favor of enforcing the current regulations. What I'm not in favor of can be found in the title of this thread, emphasis on "more". More enforcement would be cool. More regulation would not be cool.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

you speak to anyone in the aviation business and try to make the argument skyding aircraft are safer than commercial aviation (Airlines, 135, air medical, flight training) they will roll over laughing.

No, I won't. I spend over 40 weeks a year meeting with and training mechanics across the aviation spectrum and I don't think that, as a rule, the jump planes that I see are maintained to a lower standard mechanically than any other-and there's one major airline that I refuse to fly. Jump planes aren't normally as pretty as 135 ops, but they are just as sound where it counts.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[DSE 3]

Quote

Even if you made the planes kayaks, bicycle, rollerblade, motorcycle, spiked heels, SCUBA skiis, handgun, chainsaw, street luge, surfboard, BMX, extension cord, anti-depressant, power drill, football, baseball, climbing harness, commercial airline 100% fail-safe, people would still die.

Blues,
Dave

I agree, Strat, bailing wire and epoxied props should immediately shut down an operation. How common is it though? These are illegal in private aviation too, aren't they? Aircraft inspections seem to fail at all levels, so I don't see more regulation doing a damn thing. Better enforcement, maybe?
Nothing is failsafe, and only a total moron would believe that every contingency can be considered, every part assessed to catch a failure, and every event anticipated, even without considering the human element.

Can skydiving operations be made more safe? I'm sure they can. So can roads, automobiles, and motorcycle helmets. Refer to Booth's Law #1, however.
There comes a point of cost vs reality. It's damned easy to be cavalier and say "Who cares the cost; it's a human life at stake." At the end of the day, governments, manufacturers, and small businesses must be able to take risks assayed of cost vs reality. No one is willing to pay more than double for the cost of a safer car, road way, or more policing; few are willing to pay a grand for a better motorcycle helmet and fewer still are willing to shell out more $$ for a safer amusement park ride. There is always a 'safer, better, more humane' mousetrap around the corner.

Cold and harsh it may be, but it's a standard reality of life. Risk management.
As a small business owner, this is one aspect we face on a near-daily basis. Risk vs reward vs profitability. It's very, very easy for someone who doesn't write their own paycheck to spend revenue they didn't generate. It's even easier to play god on the internet and make anonymous accusations and slurs against a general populus honest, hardworking people that generate a buck so that others might be employed.

Sure, there are shitty DZO's that shouldn't be in business. The same can be said about white water companies, helicopter tours, glider port owners, mountain bike tour managers, and any other kind of operator that puts humans in/on/around a vehicle/mechanical device/animal of some sort. There are bad operators of every kind in every business. But that doesn't make everyone in any industry guilty of the same. Regulation and more laws won't do anything to prevent a mechanic from f'ing up and forgetting to put four out of five lug nuts on your wheel after fixing a tire....

At the same time, the regulators and enforcers f'up too. I've twice seen the FAA demand a change in the aircraft, and when complied, the FAA changed what they'd demanded in the first place because they recognized one guy's reaction to a situation was incorrect. And who's to say that there isn't a FSDO that doesn't have an itchy hair up his but for a skydiving operation anyway, regardless of how safe it is?

Strat, at least you have strong legs to stand on when you make a claim, along with a history in the sport to make it worthwhile to at least listen to (even if I don't always agree w/them )

[737driver 0]

DSE, why try to justify something being unsafe by saying its ok because xyz is unsafe...

Not every drop zone is "unsafe" but im sorry to say out of all the ones I have been to I would say the majority are.

I think the FAA should attend a few more skydiving events.. and start picking off the aircraft ferrying in with skydivers on board...

That would be easy pickings for catching unscrupulous DZ's that are flouting the law.

Trouble with the other violations they can be hard to catch people committing.

The FAA don't have infinite resources, and of course (rightly so) most of their time is spent looking after and overseeing air carriers.

[billvon 2,435]

>And why are sky divers so anti change and regulation...

They're generally not against change. Compare the sport today to the sport in 1990 and you'll notice a _lot_ of changes.

They are generally anti-new-laws because lawmakers often don't pass good laws when it comes to skydiving. With a few exceptions, there just aren't enough skydivers involved in setting up new skydiving regulations.

They're also opposed to them when it means losing their opportunity to jump. Imagine your reaction to an FAA mandate to replace all 737 pilots with computers. I suspect you'd have some incentive to see more of the bad aspects of that proposal than the good ones.

[livendive 8]

Quote

I think the FAA should attend a few more skydiving events.. and start picking off the aircraft ferrying in with skydivers on board...

That would be easy pickings for catching unscrupulous DZ's that are flouting the law.

You've yet to explain how the ferry flights become suddenly more hazardous by carrying jumpers. As far as I can tell, you're still just wanting those people to help fund your paycheck.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[stratostar 5]

Your right and we agree here, please reread my last line in my first post. (pasted for you)

Quote

The easy fix is to just fund the enforcement the current set of rules we have and buget the the money to do it instead of bailing out the airlines, again, unlike now or the last x number years or so.

Yes there are fewer of the types of operators I speak of today then yesterday, however I'm starting to see some who I wouldn't have ever though would stoop so low, start to do so. There have and always will be the seeing able blindly following their leader cuz their nice people or "we family".

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[737driver 0]

It is ILLEGAL.

The operation is not set up to carry members of the public as part of public transportation.

If you can't see how or why that is illegal I'm not going to waste my breath or bandwidth explaining the obvious.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

Will require the FAA to have a surveillance program over the dropzone and make sure.. or at least go someway to make sure that rules and regulations are adhered to.

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".

The problem with that is those that are making the decisions, and should be held responsible (the owner/operators) don't have to have any certificate.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[livendive 8]

Quote

It is ILLEGAL.

The operation is not set up to carry members of the public as part of public transportation.

If you can't see how or why that is illegal I'm not going to waste my breath or bandwidth explaining the obvious.

Legality has little to do with safety, and that's one of the problems with inviting more regulation. Additionally, given that the jumpers aboard are *not* members of the public at large, you'll have to explain in a bit more detail how participants in a ferry flight are automatically illegal.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[737driver 0]

No Dave I don't it is illegal.

Back to FFE here is a copy of the email i just sent to the FAA

Dear Sirs,

On the 19th of April 2008 there was a fatal accident at the Mt. Vernon airport involving a Cessna 206 conducting sky diving operations.

I am a check airman with XXXXXXXXXX, and had this information passed to me which may help your investigation - the person passing it to me felt she could not come forward because of the close nit nature of the skydiving community.

Below is the information I had passed to me

"I am by no means anyone who really knows anything, just an innocent bystander who has risked my life more time than I care to think about by trusting that my drop zone will keep me safe. I think there were several factors that caused this accident.

1. Drop zone allowed a plane that was not airworthy, and even the owner of the drop zone did not want to fly it. It has had issues from the beginning.
2. I think the plane had a balance issue. I think there was too much weight and distributed unevenly in the plane. When we got in the plane, the pilot had to get in first because it was tail heavy. This plane has had the stall warning come on many times when exiting the plane. Most of the time people just jump when the stall warning comes on. When I say most people I am talking tandem instructors and very experienced jumpers.
3. I think the pilot was inadequate for training on this plane. I think the pilot made some real mistakes on this flight. A person on the ground stated they saw the plane level out when the 4 girls left. Then when Jen jumped and the chute got caught on the tail it was over. A good pilot would have said get the hell out of my plane at 10,000 feet not 4,500 feet.

Again I am a baby jumper with about 500 jumps so what do I know anyway. These are just my thoughts along with some real issues. I have described both.

There have been just too many things in the past that I have gone along with. But this time, things need to be address. An example is how come a double malfunction with a tandem (owner of DZ flying the tandem) was not reported. They were able to land but the DZ owner broke his neck. I sat with the gentleman who just came inches away from dying while he watched his video and I was told not to say anything. It was never reported to USPA. Instead DZO told us to say he fell off the back of the truck and that is why he wore the neck brace. Also there was a guy named Brent that had a double mal and landed hard on the end of the runway. I was there that day also. I took care of his kids until his wife was able to get there and they took him away by ambulance. He broke his back. This too was never reported to USPA or drop zone incidents because his reserve was out of date and they did not want anyone to know. Once again I kept my mouth shut. Why I do not know as it is not my nature. Oh yea and there is more… The day was cloudy and the ceiling was too low to skydive. I started heading home and had made it about 10 miles down the road when I saw a break in the clouds. I whipped a u-turn on I44 and headed back to the DZ just in time to see the sky clear up. DZO owner was flying the 182; 4 on the load. On the way to altitude the DZO and his wife were goofing around she was trying to catch a mint in her mouth. He was pulling back and pushing forward on the yoke to assist her in catching the mint in her mouth. He either pushed forward or pulled back to hard and we all flew to the roof of the plane. I hit my head very hard and still have neck pain today because of it. His wife cut her nose on the beam in the top of the plane and had to have stitches. I am sorry to say I was bought off by the mere price of one free jump.

I have not jumped there since, only when they had the larger planes – Mike Mullins – come in for the boogies.

I feel as if I played a part in letting all of this slide. Many others and myself are guilty because we did nothing, said nothing. We are all just as guilty as if we were in that door and didn’t let Marnie get out.
I hope you now understand why I can’t fight the battle on drop zone because I feel too guilty, but when things do come out and they will I will not be afraid to stand up and say what I should have said a long time ago."

[livendive 8]

Quote

No Dave I don't it is illegal.

Pardon me if I don't take your word for it.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[737driver 0]

Feel free to call your local FSDO and ask them

[Colson 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Will require the FAA to have a surveillance program over the dropzone and make sure.. or at least go someway to make sure that rules and regulations are adhered to.

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".

The problem with that is those that are making the decisions, and should be held responsible (the owner/operators) don't have to have any certificate.

I find it hard to believe that there would not be at least one certificate holder at a DZ. Unless the persons flying, working on the plane, and packing reserves dont have them.

It doesnt matter if the certificate holder is the person doing wrong or simply observing it, they have an equal responsibility to stop those activities. Doing otherwise is a huge disservice to aviation as a whole.

The FAA has, though lack of staffing-not by choice, has pushed the frontline enforcement down to the level of the certificate holders in hopes that people would act responsible, not interpret it as being given freedom.

[stratostar 5]

Very poorly written, at best! The fact that you sent such a letter and have no proof what so ever to back up any claims made, is less then steller.

However being well virsed in dealing with the FAA myself in the signed statements/affidavits department, is not something I was good at starting out and it took a bit of stepping back to be able to write a useful affidavit.

At least in my case, I had a mountain of evidence and 5 other people making the same claims.

What you have here is nothing but "shotgunning" and while I can respect the fact that you have the balls to stand up in public and speak out. But quite frankly without any undisputed proof (such as video) your not going to get much if any support here (dz.com) or in the industry as a whole, that is just the way it is, SNAFU.

Your "insider" feels the need to speak out, then they should grab their balls and do their own talking/posting and deal with the heat and fallout like the rest of us, too many cowards in the sport who want to duck and hide and let someone else do their talking for them and take all the heat.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[DanG 1]

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

So are you going after GA collectively, or just the evil skydiving operations. Because when I look at the NTSB database, skydiving planes appear to be a drop in the bucket.

Blues,
Dave

Skydiving ACCIDENT rates are significantly higher than GA overall. Higher even than flight training, which includes student pilots doing their solos.

...

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

[tombuch 0]

Quote

What you have here is nothing but "shotgunning" and while I can respect the fact that you have the balls to stand up in public and speak out. But quite frankly without any undisputed proof (such as video) your not going to get much if any support here (dz.com) or in the industry as a whole, that is just the way it is, SNAFU.

Your "insider" feels the need to speak out, then they should grab their balls and do their own talking/posting and deal with the heat and fallout like the rest of us, too many cowards in the sport who want to duck and hide and let someone else do their talking for them and take all the heat.

First, I'm not seeing 737driver "standing up in public." He is hiding behind an anonymous identity. Some of what I'm hearing is of concern, but it doesn't have a whole lot of credibility in this forum without a name and a bit of background regarding his relationship to the operation. If the idea is to simply put the concerns out in public, then this approach is effective. If the objective is to bring pressure to change behavior, then this approach is probably not going to have the desired effect.

For others: The FAA is actually happy to hear anonymous complaints. If you identify an issue at your drop zone and call the local GADO or FSDO they will listen without requiring you to identify yourself. The inspectors are knowledgeable about aviation issues and will take your concerns seriously. In some cases they may be able to explain the regulations and put you at ease, in other cases they may agree to look into the matter informally, and in some cases they may ask you to go "on the record" so they can launch an official investigation. In my experience, you will always have the option of declining to go on the record. In that case, they will still take your concern under advisement, but may not be able to take certificate action.

If you are concerned about your own DZ or another DZ, begin by finding the local FAA office, either in the phone book or at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/. When you call tell them you want to speak with an inspector about a potential problem regarding skydiving at (name of airport, city, part of the region). That will get you to the right person. Then, state clearly that you don't want to file an official complaint at this time, and would like your name to remain off the record. The inspector will probably say something like "Alright, tell me what's on your mind. If we get to a point where I need to take this on the record, or I need to include your name, I'll tell you, and you can then make the decision if you want to go forward."

If, for example, you report that a pilot was drinking before flying, but you won't file an official complaint or go on the record, the inspector will probably say he can't take action, but he will still keep your report in the back of his mind. If he gets other similar reports about the operation he may then call the operator, or do a ramp check to get a feel for what is really going on. So even an anonymous complaint can begin the oversight process.

It's pretty easy to bring critical issues forward. If you know about a problem that places the public at risk, remaining silent isn't really a suitable solution.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

No Dave I don't it is illegal.

Pardon me if I don't take your word for it.

Blues,
Dave

Well, if they put approved seats in for the ferry flight I suppose it could be legal. The exemption from the seat requirement rule (FAR 91.14) is specifically related to skydiving, not ferrying people from one place to another.

And then there's the whole issue of if they charge people for the ferry flight...

...

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

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Skydiving ACCIDENT rates are significantly higher than GA overall. Higher even than flight training, which includes student pilots doing their solos.

Could someone point me to some statistical studies that support this conclusion?

I did a quick look at the NTSB accident page & for the last 10 years there have been 4,300 fatal accidents, 18 of them involving skydiving operations.

[DanG 1]

Quote

f you are concerned about your own DZ or another DZ, begin by finding the local FAA office

With all due respect, Tom, I would hope that people would begin by bringing the issue up with the pilot, DZO, or other DZ official. What may be a misunderstanding, or even a legitimate concern, will most often be solved more easily by staying local than by going to the Feds. If we have become so jaded with an us (skydivers) vs. them (DZOs) mentality as some people here espouse, then the sport is really lost.

- Dan G

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Quote

f you are concerned about your own DZ or another DZ, begin by finding the local FAA office

With all due respect, Tom, I would hope that people would begin by bringing the issue up with the pilot, DZO, or other DZ official. What may be a misunderstanding, or even a legitimate concern, will most often be solved more easily by staying local than by going to the Feds. If we have become so jaded with an us (skydivers) vs. them (DZOs) mentality as some people here espouse, then the sport is really lost.

- Dan G

I agree on all points.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy