livendive 8 #76 April 23, 2008 Quote 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... Most of the ferry flights I've been on included seats, but I'll admit some didn't. As for the charging thing, it's irrelevent if the participants (including the pilot) are merely splitting the cost of the flight, right? If you and I took your Mooney to Eloy for a weekend and I split the costs with you, that wouldn't make it a commercial flight, would it? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #77 April 23, 2008 > It is ILLEGAL. Actually, it's not illegal to carry people as a private pilot on a ferry flight. I have carried jumpers to a drop zone in a 172 I rented for the purpose. The FAA explicitly allows this providing it's not a scheduled flight and the passengers "cost share" only (i.e. contribute towards fuel and rental, not pay the pilot a fee for the operation.) Whether it was legal or not in this case depends on whether the pilot was paid a fee for the service, and whether the jumpers contributed only to the operating costs of the aircraft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scdrnr 0 #78 April 23, 2008 QuoteActually, it's not illegal to carry people as a private pilot on a ferry flight. I have carried jumpers to a drop zone in a 172 I rented for the purpose. The FAA explicitly allows this providing it's not a scheduled flight and the passengers "cost share" only (i.e. contribute towards fuel and rental, not pay the pilot a fee for the operation.) Whether it was legal or not in this case depends on whether the pilot was paid a fee for the service, and whether the jumpers contributed only to the operating costs of the aircraft. Furthermore, a commercial pilot may be paid to fly a privately operated flight. A private party that owns, rents, or leases an aircraft may hire a pilot to fly them anywhere part 91 so long as they have operational control and it is not the pilot himself who is leasing the aircraft. And a DZO may certainly fill the plane with his staff/good customers and fly them to a boogie while paying the pilot to do so. No different than a bunch of fortune 500 execs/clients hopping on the company jet to go to a business meeting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scdrnr 0 #79 April 23, 2008 Quote The main point here is that FAR 135 or similar rules created for skydiving would provide regulatory oversight. Including a POI. So these things SHOULD be picked up before they result in loss of life. . When you compare 135 vs. 91 for like operations, 135 has a worse record. The during the recent tightening of part 91 scenic tour operators the FAA used a series of accidents that occurred under part 135 to make their case that the rules were needed. The only logical explanation I can think of is that the 135 operators convinced the FAA that they wouldn't be under such pressure to cut corners and break rules if they didn't have to compete with the part 91 "loophole" operators. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #80 April 23, 2008 Quote Good points you make there. Something needs to happen bring about change. We both agree enforcement needs to happen.. and the USPA are not the ones to do it. It needs to come from the FAA, if some drop zones have to close then... too bad. If only the bigger ones keep going, and are forced to spend money on training and looking after their aircraft then that is fine by me. Anyone that disagrees, put yourself in the shoes of the family that has lost someone because not enough money was spent on keeping the aircraft blue side up. 73 check airman from Newark...wonder who YOU fly with!?I gotta disagree with your well thought out argument, for the same reason the gun lovers fight any and all intrusions on the 2nd amendment...where will the regulation end? FAA can't handle traffic over Newark without causing record numbers of low fuel priority landing requests, how can we possibly believe they can 'fairly and efficiently' step in and regulate an area of aviation that requires vastly more $ to oversee than will ever generate. FAA seems to be okay with us regulating ourselves to this point, the free market competition seems to be keeping the less than 'legal' operations out of the mainstream for the most part. Could the USPA use some better teeth in dealing with DZ's? You bet, but little chance of that in light of the most recent attempts at DZ regulation. Remember the motto: "I'm from the FAA, and we're not happy 'till YOU'RE not happy" ...we really wanna invite THAT into our house? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,120 #81 April 23, 2008 QuoteEven if one life is saved it is worth it.That's a specious argument. It can be applied to a whole lot of things. Think of how much car accidents could be reduced if everyone had to have a new car, with all safety equipment! Sure, some people would have to quit driving, but think of the lives saved. Not to say that shitty airplanes are a good idea; they aren't. Not to say that things aren't pushed -- they are. But a good causal analysis of the jump plane accidents over the last few years will provide some data-based decisions, rather than simply trying to apply a slew of new regulations and then not understanding why people don't view you as a saviour. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #82 April 23, 2008 QuoteQuote 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... Most of the ferry flights I've been on included seats, but I'll admit some didn't. As for the charging thing, it's irrelevent if the participants (including the pilot) are merely splitting the cost of the flight, right? If you and I took your Mooney to Eloy for a weekend and I split the costs with you, that wouldn't make it a commercial flight, would it? Blues, Dave Were the seats "approved" for passenger operations by the manufacturer according to the type certificate, by STC, or FSDO approval? Ferrying skydivers does not count for the skydiving exclusion.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #83 April 23, 2008 Quote> It is ILLEGAL. Actually, it's not illegal to carry people as a private pilot on a ferry flight. I have carried jumpers to a drop zone in a 172 I rented for the purpose. The FAA explicitly allows this providing it's not a scheduled flight and the passengers "cost share" only (i.e. contribute towards fuel and rental, not pay the pilot a fee for the operation.) Whether it was legal or not in this case depends on whether the pilot was paid a fee for the service, and whether the jumpers contributed only to the operating costs of the aircraft. If it's a private pilot, he/she has to share the costs too, and have a common purpose with the passengers.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #84 April 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteActually, it's not illegal to carry people as a private pilot on a ferry flight. I have carried jumpers to a drop zone in a 172 I rented for the purpose. The FAA explicitly allows this providing it's not a scheduled flight and the passengers "cost share" only (i.e. contribute towards fuel and rental, not pay the pilot a fee for the operation.) Whether it was legal or not in this case depends on whether the pilot was paid a fee for the service, and whether the jumpers contributed only to the operating costs of the aircraft. Furthermore, a commercial pilot may be paid to fly a privately operated flight. A private party that owns, rents, or leases an aircraft may hire a pilot to fly them anywhere part 91 so long as they have operational control and it is not the pilot himself who is leasing the aircraft. And a DZO may certainly fill the plane with his staff/good customers and fly them to a boogie while paying the pilot to do so. No different than a bunch of fortune 500 execs/clients hopping on the company jet to go to a business meeting. Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not a licensed pilot. I thought the only people allowed to ride on a plane without being in an approved seat are "skydivers onboard with the intention of making a parachute jump" - or some such FAA lingo as that. I assume that within the bounds of this conversation, the ferrying in question is in a jump plane set up for jumping. What have I missed - other than the "they were onboard to make a jump...at our destination".Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #85 April 23, 2008 >If it's a private pilot, he/she has to share the costs too, and have a >common purpose with the passengers. Yep. The "common purpose" would presumably covered by their desire to return from the boogie. The plane also has to be legal, of course (seats, certified for flight into known conditions etc) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #86 April 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteActually, it's not illegal to carry people as a private pilot on a ferry flight. I have carried jumpers to a drop zone in a 172 I rented for the purpose. The FAA explicitly allows this providing it's not a scheduled flight and the passengers "cost share" only (i.e. contribute towards fuel and rental, not pay the pilot a fee for the operation.) Whether it was legal or not in this case depends on whether the pilot was paid a fee for the service, and whether the jumpers contributed only to the operating costs of the aircraft. Furthermore, a commercial pilot may be paid to fly a privately operated flight. A private party that owns, rents, or leases an aircraft may hire a pilot to fly them anywhere part 91 so long as they have operational control and it is not the pilot himself who is leasing the aircraft. And a DZO may certainly fill the plane with his staff/good customers and fly them to a boogie while paying the pilot to do so. No different than a bunch of fortune 500 execs/clients hopping on the company jet to go to a business meeting. Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not a licensed pilot. I thought the only people allowed to ride on a plane without being in an approved seat are "skydivers onboard with the intention of making a parachute jump" - or some such FAA lingo as that. I assume that within the bounds of this conversation, the ferrying in question is in a jump plane set up for jumping. What have I missed - other than the "they were onboard to make a jump...at our destination". Jump plane operations are restricted to a 25 mile radius from the point of departure. Demo jumps sometimes recieve exceptions to this rule.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #87 April 23, 2008 Quote >If it's a private pilot, he/she has to share the costs too, and have a >common purpose with the passengers. Yep. The "common purpose" would presumably covered by their desire to return from the boogie. The plane also has to be legal, of course (seats, certified for flight into known conditions etc) So, was the ferry flight from Idaho to Washington illegal? "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #88 April 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote*** Jump plane operations are restricted to a 25 mile radius from the point of departure. Demo jumps sometimes recieve exceptions to this rule. So a flight further than 25 miles from the departure airport must - by definition - NOT be a flight for parachute operations??? Also... does that mean that any flight further than 25 miles should NOT have skydivers onboard unless they are in a approved seats? Seems to make sense if what you say is true. This would also take away the "we were onboard to jump" arguement if the other end of the trip exceeds 25 miles.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,396 #89 April 23, 2008 >So, was the ferry flight from Idaho to Washington illegal? Again, depends on the status of seats, qualifications of pilots etc. Caravans are certified for IFR night flight, so that's legal. Known icing is a possible question, as are seats; they have to be in place. Installed structural bench seats are a very gray area. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #90 April 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote 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... Most of the ferry flights I've been on included seats, but I'll admit some didn't. As for the charging thing, it's irrelevent if the participants (including the pilot) are merely splitting the cost of the flight, right? If you and I took your Mooney to Eloy for a weekend and I split the costs with you, that wouldn't make it a commercial flight, would it? Blues, Dave Were the seats "approved" for passenger operations by the manufacturer according to the type certificate, by STC, or FSDO approval? Ferrying skydivers does not count for the skydiving exclusion. I assume so. They've been the normal padded seats with shoulder & lap belts and four points of attachment to the floor, just like I imagine these planes use when not configured for skydiving or cargo ops. They're mostly just a hassle to put in and take out whenever going on a ferry ride. I certainly don't feel much more or less safe as a result of them. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diverdriver 5 #91 April 24, 2008 QuoteQuote Actually, we have a much worse record than commercial aviation. Comparing less with Airlines and more with like aircraft we have double the accident rate of general aviation and a HIGHER percentage of crashes than flight instruction flights and part 135 flights. We've been down this discussion path before. Skydiving does NOT stack up. Is this measured in hours or cycles? When I started tracking jump plane accidents and listing them for the public to see I was asked this. Almost 10 years ago. The accident rate for jump planes is estimated (the estimation comes from the USPA/FAA numbers provided for hours flown by the fleet per year) as 12 accidents per 100,000 hours of operation. This rate is DOUBLE the accident rate of General Aviation which includes student pilots, private pilots, and other commercial pilots. The next question I get is "yah, but we do more takeoffs and landings so it doesn't compare." Well, it does. We can look at flight instruction flights which are high cycle operations going from high power to low power to high power again. The accident rate per 100,000 hours of operation is LESS than 6.0. (6.0 is the accident rate of GA). The NTSB specificly says this rate is atributable to there being a commercial pilot (CFI) on boad keeping things according to regs for the most part. Their professionalism is noted for keeping the rate low. Well, skydiving has commercial pilots (mostly). And our rate is OVER DOUBLE their accident rate in very similar aircraft. Why? Lack of oversight and absolutely no standardized initial training in skydiving ops is what I believe to be the reason. I started flying skydivers in 1995. By 1998 I believed there was a serious problem with the jump plane fleet and how it was being operated. I took it apon myself to try and track it to back it up with numbers and I believe I have. I list the accidents I can find for all to see and form their own opinion. www.DiverDriver.com to other posters about pilots from florida schools.. ...oh, and I'm one of those sniveling punks from one of those pilot schools in Florida (cough..Daytona). Most people liked the way I flew them. I guess I got more training than those other punks coming out now.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jsaxton 0 #92 April 24, 2008 How many are mechanical and how many are operations? The $100 hamburger crowd obviously doesn't have to deal with jump run issues like canopies over the tail, loss of rudder/elevator authority due to floaters and other things that happen on jump run. I'm not arguing, I have always believed that the plane will kill me before I burn in on a jump. I'm just interested what YOUR read is on the issues. Thanks, Jeff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #93 April 24, 2008 I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that more are from operational issues. For example, how many jump ships have we seen lost from low or contaminated fuel?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jsaxton 0 #94 April 24, 2008 DUDE!!! you might get a knot on your head if you hit turbulence! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #95 April 24, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote*** Jump plane operations are restricted to a 25 mile radius from the point of departure. Demo jumps sometimes recieve exceptions to this rule. So a flight further than 25 miles from the departure airport must - by definition - NOT be a flight for parachute operations??? Also... does that mean that any flight further than 25 miles should NOT have skydivers onboard unless they are in a approved seats? Seems to make sense if what you say is true. This would also take away the "we were onboard to jump" arguement if the other end of the trip exceeds 25 miles. That is my understanding of the FAR's---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites scdrnr 0 #96 April 24, 2008 QuoteJump plane operations are restricted to a 25 mile radius from the point of departure. Demo jumps sometimes recieve exceptions to this rule. So a flight further than 25 miles from the departure airport must - by definition - NOT be a flight for parachute operations??? Also... does that mean that any flight further than 25 miles should NOT have skydivers onboard unless they are in a approved seats? Seems to make sense if what you say is true. This would also take away the "we were onboard to jump" arguement if the other end of the trip exceeds 25 miles. That is my understanding of the FAR's The rule restricting parachute flights to 25nm (119.1) pertains to commercial operations. If the parachutists are not paying for the flight or only the pro-rata share then there is no limitation. Part 91.107 allows parachutists to use the floor, but doesn't contain any radius restriction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites scdrnr 0 #97 April 24, 2008 QuoteWell, skydiving has commercial pilots (mostly). And our rate is OVER DOUBLE their accident rate in very similar aircraft. Why? Lack of oversight and absolutely no standardized initial training in skydiving ops is what I believe to be the reason. I started flying skydivers in 1995. By 1998 I believed there was a serious problem with the jump plane fleet and how it was being operated. I took it apon myself to try and track it to back it up with numbers and I believe I have. I list the accidents I can find for all to see and form their own opinion. I may not have analyzed all the accidents as thoroughly as you have, but to me, it looks like a large percentage of the accidents aren't the result of a lack of jump specific training. For instance, are we really to believe that these pilots, in the course of their training for commercial licenses, were never told not to run out of fuel, use carb heat on descent, fly into IMC with inop equipment, fly out of W&B? This is basic pilot shit that should have been covered thoroughly before they ever soloed! Frankly there will always be some elevated risk to jump operations. Its a bottom end aviation job filled mostly by fresh 300-700 hr pilots, which is statistically the most dangerous group of pilots. Its the whole skill and ego come faster than experience and judgement thing. And new CFI's or other stepping stone jobs aren't exposed to the same edge of the envelope type operations, and probably have more supervision, and less negative influence - lets face it, the typical skydiving culture and attitude doesn't always reward conservative behavior. Obviously the best solution is for dropzones to have an experienced chief pilot around. Not all dropzones can afford that. So how about expanding the role of S&TA to include aircraft ops? They don't have to be pilots to learn the regs, know about fuel consumption and W&B, and basic procedures for their DZ's aircraft, and how to read maintenance logs. Maybe the USPA can forward aircraft AD's and SB's to S&TA's too. SO i guess my solution is not more pilot training, but S&TA training. Why not use the safety system we already have to keep an eye out for the really basic errors that keep causing alot of the accidents. Would that not bring our accident rate a little more in line with the rest of GA? Edited too add: The more I think about it why can't more a/c knowledge be required for C and D license? Couldn't the USPA add an appendix to the SIM containing the basic weight and balance, and fuel consumption info for common jump planes? Shouldn't a "Master Parachutist" be able to determine basic airworthiness, configuration, and fuel requirements for a given flight? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #98 April 24, 2008 QuoteQuoteWell, skydiving has commercial pilots (mostly). And our rate is OVER DOUBLE their accident rate in very similar aircraft. Why? Lack of oversight and absolutely no standardized initial training in skydiving ops is what I believe to be the reason. I started flying skydivers in 1995. By 1998 I believed there was a serious problem with the jump plane fleet and how it was being operated. I took it apon myself to try and track it to back it up with numbers and I believe I have. I list the accidents I can find for all to see and form their own opinion. I may not have analyzed all the accidents as thoroughly as you have, but to me, it looks like a large percentage of the accidents aren't the result of a lack of jump specific training. For instance, are we really to believe that these pilots, in the course of their training for commercial licenses, were never told not to run out of fuel, use carb heat on descent, fly into IMC with inop equipment, fly out of W&B? This is basic pilot shit that should have been covered thoroughly before they ever soloed! ? One indeed wonders why someone with a commercial certificate would do these things just because they are in a jump plane (given that Diverdriver's data are correct). I've managed nearly 1200 hours as a mere private pilot with a "complex" airplane and haven't succumbed to any of these problems. Maybe chandelles and lazy eights aren't really relevant to flying jumpers. Could it be the DZ culture that's the problem?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Scrumpot 1 #99 April 25, 2008 Wendy is STILL who I want to be when I grow up! And that's all I'll say about this one, as I go back to my now long time LURKING, and no longer posting in this silly, childish (for the most part, with sadly rarer and rarer exception it seems) place. Wonder too if Zing still "lurks"? Heard he actually got kicked off. Blue skies friends, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 4 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 2,396 #89 April 23, 2008 >So, was the ferry flight from Idaho to Washington illegal? Again, depends on the status of seats, qualifications of pilots etc. Caravans are certified for IFR night flight, so that's legal. Known icing is a possible question, as are seats; they have to be in place. Installed structural bench seats are a very gray area. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #90 April 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote 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... Most of the ferry flights I've been on included seats, but I'll admit some didn't. As for the charging thing, it's irrelevent if the participants (including the pilot) are merely splitting the cost of the flight, right? If you and I took your Mooney to Eloy for a weekend and I split the costs with you, that wouldn't make it a commercial flight, would it? Blues, Dave Were the seats "approved" for passenger operations by the manufacturer according to the type certificate, by STC, or FSDO approval? Ferrying skydivers does not count for the skydiving exclusion. I assume so. They've been the normal padded seats with shoulder & lap belts and four points of attachment to the floor, just like I imagine these planes use when not configured for skydiving or cargo ops. They're mostly just a hassle to put in and take out whenever going on a ferry ride. I certainly don't feel much more or less safe as a result of them. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #91 April 24, 2008 QuoteQuote Actually, we have a much worse record than commercial aviation. Comparing less with Airlines and more with like aircraft we have double the accident rate of general aviation and a HIGHER percentage of crashes than flight instruction flights and part 135 flights. We've been down this discussion path before. Skydiving does NOT stack up. Is this measured in hours or cycles? When I started tracking jump plane accidents and listing them for the public to see I was asked this. Almost 10 years ago. The accident rate for jump planes is estimated (the estimation comes from the USPA/FAA numbers provided for hours flown by the fleet per year) as 12 accidents per 100,000 hours of operation. This rate is DOUBLE the accident rate of General Aviation which includes student pilots, private pilots, and other commercial pilots. The next question I get is "yah, but we do more takeoffs and landings so it doesn't compare." Well, it does. We can look at flight instruction flights which are high cycle operations going from high power to low power to high power again. The accident rate per 100,000 hours of operation is LESS than 6.0. (6.0 is the accident rate of GA). The NTSB specificly says this rate is atributable to there being a commercial pilot (CFI) on boad keeping things according to regs for the most part. Their professionalism is noted for keeping the rate low. Well, skydiving has commercial pilots (mostly). And our rate is OVER DOUBLE their accident rate in very similar aircraft. Why? Lack of oversight and absolutely no standardized initial training in skydiving ops is what I believe to be the reason. I started flying skydivers in 1995. By 1998 I believed there was a serious problem with the jump plane fleet and how it was being operated. I took it apon myself to try and track it to back it up with numbers and I believe I have. I list the accidents I can find for all to see and form their own opinion. www.DiverDriver.com to other posters about pilots from florida schools.. ...oh, and I'm one of those sniveling punks from one of those pilot schools in Florida (cough..Daytona). Most people liked the way I flew them. I guess I got more training than those other punks coming out now.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jsaxton 0 #92 April 24, 2008 How many are mechanical and how many are operations? The $100 hamburger crowd obviously doesn't have to deal with jump run issues like canopies over the tail, loss of rudder/elevator authority due to floaters and other things that happen on jump run. I'm not arguing, I have always believed that the plane will kill me before I burn in on a jump. I'm just interested what YOUR read is on the issues. Thanks, Jeff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #93 April 24, 2008 I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that more are from operational issues. For example, how many jump ships have we seen lost from low or contaminated fuel?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jsaxton 0 #94 April 24, 2008 DUDE!!! you might get a knot on your head if you hit turbulence! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #95 April 24, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote*** Jump plane operations are restricted to a 25 mile radius from the point of departure. Demo jumps sometimes recieve exceptions to this rule. So a flight further than 25 miles from the departure airport must - by definition - NOT be a flight for parachute operations??? Also... does that mean that any flight further than 25 miles should NOT have skydivers onboard unless they are in a approved seats? Seems to make sense if what you say is true. This would also take away the "we were onboard to jump" arguement if the other end of the trip exceeds 25 miles. That is my understanding of the FAR's---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites scdrnr 0 #96 April 24, 2008 QuoteJump plane operations are restricted to a 25 mile radius from the point of departure. Demo jumps sometimes recieve exceptions to this rule. So a flight further than 25 miles from the departure airport must - by definition - NOT be a flight for parachute operations??? Also... does that mean that any flight further than 25 miles should NOT have skydivers onboard unless they are in a approved seats? Seems to make sense if what you say is true. This would also take away the "we were onboard to jump" arguement if the other end of the trip exceeds 25 miles. That is my understanding of the FAR's The rule restricting parachute flights to 25nm (119.1) pertains to commercial operations. If the parachutists are not paying for the flight or only the pro-rata share then there is no limitation. Part 91.107 allows parachutists to use the floor, but doesn't contain any radius restriction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites scdrnr 0 #97 April 24, 2008 QuoteWell, skydiving has commercial pilots (mostly). And our rate is OVER DOUBLE their accident rate in very similar aircraft. Why? Lack of oversight and absolutely no standardized initial training in skydiving ops is what I believe to be the reason. I started flying skydivers in 1995. By 1998 I believed there was a serious problem with the jump plane fleet and how it was being operated. I took it apon myself to try and track it to back it up with numbers and I believe I have. I list the accidents I can find for all to see and form their own opinion. I may not have analyzed all the accidents as thoroughly as you have, but to me, it looks like a large percentage of the accidents aren't the result of a lack of jump specific training. For instance, are we really to believe that these pilots, in the course of their training for commercial licenses, were never told not to run out of fuel, use carb heat on descent, fly into IMC with inop equipment, fly out of W&B? This is basic pilot shit that should have been covered thoroughly before they ever soloed! Frankly there will always be some elevated risk to jump operations. Its a bottom end aviation job filled mostly by fresh 300-700 hr pilots, which is statistically the most dangerous group of pilots. Its the whole skill and ego come faster than experience and judgement thing. And new CFI's or other stepping stone jobs aren't exposed to the same edge of the envelope type operations, and probably have more supervision, and less negative influence - lets face it, the typical skydiving culture and attitude doesn't always reward conservative behavior. Obviously the best solution is for dropzones to have an experienced chief pilot around. Not all dropzones can afford that. So how about expanding the role of S&TA to include aircraft ops? They don't have to be pilots to learn the regs, know about fuel consumption and W&B, and basic procedures for their DZ's aircraft, and how to read maintenance logs. Maybe the USPA can forward aircraft AD's and SB's to S&TA's too. SO i guess my solution is not more pilot training, but S&TA training. Why not use the safety system we already have to keep an eye out for the really basic errors that keep causing alot of the accidents. Would that not bring our accident rate a little more in line with the rest of GA? Edited too add: The more I think about it why can't more a/c knowledge be required for C and D license? Couldn't the USPA add an appendix to the SIM containing the basic weight and balance, and fuel consumption info for common jump planes? Shouldn't a "Master Parachutist" be able to determine basic airworthiness, configuration, and fuel requirements for a given flight? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #98 April 24, 2008 QuoteQuoteWell, skydiving has commercial pilots (mostly). And our rate is OVER DOUBLE their accident rate in very similar aircraft. Why? Lack of oversight and absolutely no standardized initial training in skydiving ops is what I believe to be the reason. I started flying skydivers in 1995. By 1998 I believed there was a serious problem with the jump plane fleet and how it was being operated. I took it apon myself to try and track it to back it up with numbers and I believe I have. I list the accidents I can find for all to see and form their own opinion. I may not have analyzed all the accidents as thoroughly as you have, but to me, it looks like a large percentage of the accidents aren't the result of a lack of jump specific training. For instance, are we really to believe that these pilots, in the course of their training for commercial licenses, were never told not to run out of fuel, use carb heat on descent, fly into IMC with inop equipment, fly out of W&B? This is basic pilot shit that should have been covered thoroughly before they ever soloed! ? One indeed wonders why someone with a commercial certificate would do these things just because they are in a jump plane (given that Diverdriver's data are correct). I've managed nearly 1200 hours as a mere private pilot with a "complex" airplane and haven't succumbed to any of these problems. Maybe chandelles and lazy eights aren't really relevant to flying jumpers. Could it be the DZ culture that's the problem?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Scrumpot 1 #99 April 25, 2008 Wendy is STILL who I want to be when I grow up! And that's all I'll say about this one, as I go back to my now long time LURKING, and no longer posting in this silly, childish (for the most part, with sadly rarer and rarer exception it seems) place. Wonder too if Zing still "lurks"? Heard he actually got kicked off. Blue skies friends, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 4 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
scdrnr 0 #96 April 24, 2008 QuoteJump plane operations are restricted to a 25 mile radius from the point of departure. Demo jumps sometimes recieve exceptions to this rule. So a flight further than 25 miles from the departure airport must - by definition - NOT be a flight for parachute operations??? Also... does that mean that any flight further than 25 miles should NOT have skydivers onboard unless they are in a approved seats? Seems to make sense if what you say is true. This would also take away the "we were onboard to jump" arguement if the other end of the trip exceeds 25 miles. That is my understanding of the FAR's The rule restricting parachute flights to 25nm (119.1) pertains to commercial operations. If the parachutists are not paying for the flight or only the pro-rata share then there is no limitation. Part 91.107 allows parachutists to use the floor, but doesn't contain any radius restriction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scdrnr 0 #97 April 24, 2008 QuoteWell, skydiving has commercial pilots (mostly). And our rate is OVER DOUBLE their accident rate in very similar aircraft. Why? Lack of oversight and absolutely no standardized initial training in skydiving ops is what I believe to be the reason. I started flying skydivers in 1995. By 1998 I believed there was a serious problem with the jump plane fleet and how it was being operated. I took it apon myself to try and track it to back it up with numbers and I believe I have. I list the accidents I can find for all to see and form their own opinion. I may not have analyzed all the accidents as thoroughly as you have, but to me, it looks like a large percentage of the accidents aren't the result of a lack of jump specific training. For instance, are we really to believe that these pilots, in the course of their training for commercial licenses, were never told not to run out of fuel, use carb heat on descent, fly into IMC with inop equipment, fly out of W&B? This is basic pilot shit that should have been covered thoroughly before they ever soloed! Frankly there will always be some elevated risk to jump operations. Its a bottom end aviation job filled mostly by fresh 300-700 hr pilots, which is statistically the most dangerous group of pilots. Its the whole skill and ego come faster than experience and judgement thing. And new CFI's or other stepping stone jobs aren't exposed to the same edge of the envelope type operations, and probably have more supervision, and less negative influence - lets face it, the typical skydiving culture and attitude doesn't always reward conservative behavior. Obviously the best solution is for dropzones to have an experienced chief pilot around. Not all dropzones can afford that. So how about expanding the role of S&TA to include aircraft ops? They don't have to be pilots to learn the regs, know about fuel consumption and W&B, and basic procedures for their DZ's aircraft, and how to read maintenance logs. Maybe the USPA can forward aircraft AD's and SB's to S&TA's too. SO i guess my solution is not more pilot training, but S&TA training. Why not use the safety system we already have to keep an eye out for the really basic errors that keep causing alot of the accidents. Would that not bring our accident rate a little more in line with the rest of GA? Edited too add: The more I think about it why can't more a/c knowledge be required for C and D license? Couldn't the USPA add an appendix to the SIM containing the basic weight and balance, and fuel consumption info for common jump planes? Shouldn't a "Master Parachutist" be able to determine basic airworthiness, configuration, and fuel requirements for a given flight? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #98 April 24, 2008 QuoteQuoteWell, skydiving has commercial pilots (mostly). And our rate is OVER DOUBLE their accident rate in very similar aircraft. Why? Lack of oversight and absolutely no standardized initial training in skydiving ops is what I believe to be the reason. I started flying skydivers in 1995. By 1998 I believed there was a serious problem with the jump plane fleet and how it was being operated. I took it apon myself to try and track it to back it up with numbers and I believe I have. I list the accidents I can find for all to see and form their own opinion. I may not have analyzed all the accidents as thoroughly as you have, but to me, it looks like a large percentage of the accidents aren't the result of a lack of jump specific training. For instance, are we really to believe that these pilots, in the course of their training for commercial licenses, were never told not to run out of fuel, use carb heat on descent, fly into IMC with inop equipment, fly out of W&B? This is basic pilot shit that should have been covered thoroughly before they ever soloed! ? One indeed wonders why someone with a commercial certificate would do these things just because they are in a jump plane (given that Diverdriver's data are correct). I've managed nearly 1200 hours as a mere private pilot with a "complex" airplane and haven't succumbed to any of these problems. Maybe chandelles and lazy eights aren't really relevant to flying jumpers. Could it be the DZ culture that's the problem?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #99 April 25, 2008 Wendy is STILL who I want to be when I grow up! And that's all I'll say about this one, as I go back to my now long time LURKING, and no longer posting in this silly, childish (for the most part, with sadly rarer and rarer exception it seems) place. Wonder too if Zing still "lurks"? Heard he actually got kicked off. Blue skies friends, -Grant coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
