Jump Pilot Training Course

[grimmie 173]

It's time to establish a national jump pilot training course. I am never for more FAA involvement in our sport, but enough is enough.
There needs to be an add on rating for fixed wing pilots to fly jumpers.
The course should be intense, cover everything from 182's to Otters and every plane in between.
There is a history to jumpship crashes that is unfortunately being repeated at a very high expense in lives.
It might not prevent further crashes, but it will prevent many I am sure.
This had been discussed before, I think it's time.
Diverdriver, Zing, where do we start?
Just my 2 cents worth after the Perris crash 16 years ago tomorrow, and all of the incidents since.

[jcecil 0]

Something so broad as to cover all jump planes will not happen. There are many jump pilots who will never fly a turbine, much less a twin-turbine such as an Otter, KA, or Skyvan. Even then, flying a KA with jumpers is very different from something like an Otter, which is far different from flying a 180 or 182.

In my experience, government never gets it right anyway when they try to set rules or standards. USPA if I'm not mistaken already has material on being a jump pilot.

[grimmie 173]

If you fly 182's, do that course. If you move up to a Caravan, do that course.

[737driver 0]

These are already available... Flight Safety run them.... for the Caravan and King Air.

However how many drop zones are willing to spend the money... that is where the problem is drop zones not spending money on the aircraft and pilot training

[Colson 0]

Quote

It's time to establish a national jump pilot training course. I am never for more FAA involvement in our sport, but enough is enough.
There needs to be an add on rating for fixed wing pilots to fly jumpers.

No there does not. Do not think that getting the FAA involved with this kind of thing is useful, besides I doubt they would even entertain the idea. If there was a need they would have already done so.

Quote

The course should be intense, cover everything from 182's to Otters and every plane in between.

Ok, Ill take the course, but know that I expect to be compensated for it, and I will also consider myself to be worth much more per load/hour then I have been paid previously for jump ops.

[737driver 0]

I'm sure if the FAA had their way they would all but ban sky diving.

[Colson 0]

Quote

I'm sure if the FAA had their way they would all but ban sky diving.

Exactly, they would rather just see it all go away.

There is no way they would setup a new certification program for this. There is too much work required, besides whos going to administer the test? It would have to be a DPE, who more then likely has never flown skydivers, and who would also have to have been through the program himself, and have experience, etc.....Not to mention he would charge an examiner fee, then theres the cost of the airplane....whos going to pay that...Not me.

[737driver 0]

I think they (FAA) would be better of spending their time bringing sky diving under some form of FAR 135 regulation.

This would do far more to increase safety at drop zones... it would also close many... but what is better less drop zones or less incidents

[mattaman 0]

We have a problem. Some people think little regulation is good. Then they ruin it with stupidity and greed, then the overreaction creates lots of rules. Not addressing this problem is going to create regulation.
Can we solve the problem, yes by thinking the problem can be solved. Start talking about it, asking about pilot competancy, and refusing to jump at shithole dropzones that have clueless jump pilots cause they don't care if you live and they just want you money. Support competant drop zones!
Its your life, and I think there are a few people who have gone down with the ship and might have wanted their life back. Don't make that you!

Those stuck in maya, seek to be seen.

[737driver 0]

Put it under FAR 135... all the shit drop zones would be gone... the ones with money who can look after their airplanes could then be brought up to standard.

People would have to agree that it is going to cost more.

It needs to be regulated.. what is going on now is nothing short of disgusting.

[mark 102]

Quote

Put it under FAR 135...

I agree that changing from Part 91 to Part 135 would tighten some maintenance requirements.

Could you expand on how it would require improved pilot skills? Would that come with just upping the qualifications from commercial (in as few as 200 hours or so) to VFR Part 135 (500 hours + commercial + instrument)? Or are there other features of air taxi flying that apply to flying jumpers?

Some smaller operations, for example, the club at the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople (faculty advisor: Professor Peter Schickele), might not have a pilot qualified to serve as a check pilot. Would there need to be special qualifications for an outside check pilot, or would the local FSDO be able to approve a check pilot whose experience was in flying passengers from A to B, but not flying jumpers?

I guess I'm asking how applying every provision of Part 135 would affect a skydiving operation, for better or worse, since I don't think that there is a way that some provisions would apply and others wouldn't.

Mark

[737driver 0]

Yes Mark....

It would need to be adapted... Like part 91k was created.

I would say it would improve safety in terms of MX

Pilot's required to have greater experience.. Hours, Initial, and recurrent training.

Flight time limitations, a safety and quality assurance program etc etc etc.

Something would need to be established with regard to the training and checking requirements and who could perform that function.

For it to work it would need to become under the remit of check airmen (or similar) as the FSDO is just to busy.

[diablopilot 2]

I like sentiment your ideas have but fear that it won't make much difference at all. For every regulation created, a loophole will be found or someones signature can be bought. And over regulation will spell the death of the sport as we know it.

The Aircraft we are using in this industry were never designed for the hours and cycles that we used them to.

Cessna never planned for their light GA products to do 10,000 hours, or 30,000 cycles, but that's all some operators think they can afford.

I'd like to believe that if more time and effort is spent by this industry as a whole to educate jumpers of the dangers of improperly maintained and operated aircraft, and the additional dangers of unqualified, or reckless pilots, then those same jumpers will stop doing business with shady operators no matter how attractive the price.

I might be a bit naive.

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

[737driver 0]

No your quite right...

I think people need to face facts that prices need to go up and up quite a bit to run a safe DZ.

If i were Cessna or Pratt and Whitney I would not want a DZ flying my aircraft... and putting my good name in the papers for all the wrong reasons.

Those aircraft will fly for a long time... but to keep them flying and ship shape costs money.

Money that needs to be spent on a no object basis...

Or at least to the point where it is just not cost effective and retire the aircraft.

The trouble with a DZ is... the DZO is everything.. and much to involved in the finances.. so coupled to the fact of the lack of oversight.. its easy for them to get into the habit of letting mx slip.

I don't know how or why the FAA have not come in by now with a heavy fist... It does nothing for the image of aviation as a whole having aircraft nose in.

[diablopilot 2]

I'm pretty sure P&W is publicly running away from association with jump operations as fast as they can. Probably the same way they distance themselves with anyone who operates their products over TBO.

Of course evidence has shown that they build a great product that can be run well over TBO safely, but they won't back you up if you do.

As for Cessna, well all they have to say is "What do you expect with 20 to 30 + year old aircraft?"

If the FAA were to have any measurable effect, It might be in the case of making some sort of Drop Zone Operator's Certificate/Rating.

At least then operators/owners would have an actionable rating to be violated, and there for would be less likely to push others into taking risks they'd not face themselves.

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

[737driver 0]

That is a very good point.... the drop zone operators certificate...

Really is... I just wonder how you go about pushing the issue to get them to take notice?

[diablopilot 2]

That is the scary part. If you try to get them (the FAA) to replace just one rivet, they're just as likely build a new airframe around the defective rivet.




I don't have a good answer, which is why I try to choose where I jump wisely.

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

[737driver 0]

I think the more realistic thing to happen is that more and more law suits will be filled and successful.

And hopefully the aviation insurance companies will start forcing change... or refuse to insure skydiving aircraft.

[diablopilot 2]

[sigh]


Too true.

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

[737driver 0]

Not really a bad thing... just a round about way of doing things!

It regulates business jets and keeps FSI / CAE Simuflite in business!

[DBCOOPER 1]

Quote

And hopefully the aviation insurance companies will start forcing change... or refuse to insure skydiving aircraft.

Its already 6k a year to insure a 182 for skydiving

Thats about 68 full loads just to crack that nut....

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[deadbug 0]

I agree that in some cases that better jump pilot training is needed and I have been in this sport long enough to know that sometimes maint is lacking, but the idea of trying to adapt part 135 or require an additional FAA issued rating to fly jumpers is not the answer. With very few acceptions all US DZs are USPA member DZs. We as a community have found a way to structure a training program for the jumping side of the operation in tandem, AFF, static line, and coach programs, requiring a hierarchy of examiners to issue skydiving ratings. If there is going to be additional requirements to fly jumpers (and there are many good arguments for just that). Why not develop a program within our own community, using the expertise that we already have to structure a program and issue a non FAA issued rating to fly jumpers at USPA affiliate DZs. As far as the maint side of things go, there are already regs in place to address that. If a DZO is willing to brake those regs adding another layer is not going to change anything. Adding a group of people that know very little about day to day jump operations (FAA) and giving them more power to regulate will open a can of worms that is better left shut.

Doug

[Colson 0]

Quote

Pilot's required to have greater experience.. Hours, Initial, and recurrent training.

Like I said, I need more coin to fly if I have to jump through those hoops, Im sure not going to do it for a few bucks a load.

Quote

I don't know how or why the FAA have not come in by now with a heavy fist... It does nothing for the image of aviation as a whole having aircraft nose in.

With a statement like that you would assume they crash every other flight. Why? probably because it isnt a big deal to them.

You cant single out jumpships...It also does nothing to the image of aviation to have a cessna driver groundloop a Stearman or a Cub because they had their buddy check them out it an hour. Maybe we should change the tailwheel endorsment to a new type rating because everybody knows tailwheel aircraft are horrible, dangerous, and deadly.

Or what about all the 135/121 guys who even have type ratings and recurrency training who still manage to screw up? I've also seen complete nonsense at 141 ops, somebody whos first lesson was 6 months ago is now teaching people to fly....

For every accident there are obvious FAR violations. There are sufficient rules in place with respect to jump op safety. The accidents happen when people do not respect these rules, therefore adding more rules will just mean more violations at the post crash investigation. If jumpers wouldnt jump at the dumpy DZ's, that might help, but you know thats not going to happen.

[737driver 0]

Your having a laugh?

Aviation in the United States is regulated by the FAA... not the USPA.

We are talking about serious issues with the MX of jump planes.

It is about time the FAA started to prosecute.. and maybe bring about a change for the greater good.

[JohnMitchell 14]

How about just being more selective of pilots, and firing the horse's asses? I've seem pilots doing unsafe things deliberately, and being fired, then going off elsewhere to kill themselves and someone else in a perfectly good airplane. I don't think it's a maintenance issue; it's an attitude issue.

We need pilots who know to turn around in bad weather, get the nose down if the engine quits, and not run out of speed on jump run. We don't need arrogant pilots who will kill you trying to do you a favor or giving you an extra "thrill". With all that said, I've flown with some great jump pilots, and some that I will not get in a plane with again. Skydivers need to learn what is acceptable in a pilot, and what is not. Parachutist article, perhaps?