GoldenKnights jump ship colides with another plane

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I can not speak to the porter

He's less than 2 feet from the door in the left seat. The right seat could hang their foot out easily if the seat is turned around.
"I only have a C license, so I don't know shit..right?"-Clay

[PalmettoTiger 1]

Cool, thanks for clearing that up Chris. BTW, which part of the regs cover that? (I skimmed the FARs and supplements on your site, but didn't see anything specifically covering pilots.) Some people pointed out that since this was a USAPT operation, they might not be covered by the rig-use regulation. Part 105.1(c) states:
(c) Sections 105.5, 105.9, 105.13, 105.15, 105.17, 105.19 through 105.23, 105.25(a)(1) and 105.27 of this part do not apply to a parachute operation conducted by a member of an Armed Force --
(1) Over or within a restricted area when that area is under the control of an Armed Force.
(2) During military operations in uncontrolled airspace.

I don't know if Marana is uncontrolled airspace or not, or if "military operations" is broad enough to cover the Golden Knights' training jumps...
PTiger
I'm stepping through the door
And I'm floating in a most peculiar way

[PhreeZone 15]

Taken from USPA.org
According to a drop zone source at Marana, Arizona, at about 10 AM local time today, the Golden Knights’ Pilatus Porter dropped a load of Golden Knights and began a descent back to the airport. At some point, the Porter collided with the drop zone’s Cessna 182 with a load of skydivers aboard. Apparently, the Cessna’s jumpers exited safely, and the Cessna pilot safely landed his aircraft. The Porter crashed, apparently killing the pilot. No other fatalities are reported. The extent of injuries (if any) is not yet known.
I wish you would step back from that ledge my friend... ~3EB

[wingnut 0]

just giving my 2 cents on the military reg question......
in all my time in the airforce we have always had to comply with faa rules and regulations....... the whole on military orders ans such thing comes into play mostly when they are doing strictly military only things like flying in blackout conditions (no external lights) and such.... as far as i know (no very well though) they should of been complying with faa regs. on this paticular jump cuz it was just a "normal" training jump........... course i could be all wrong...just my uninformed opinion on stuff i've seen......

"i may not go to heven, i hope you go to hell"-C.C.

[markbaur 0]

Quote

The regs say that anyone sitting in the "cabin" has to have an emergency bail out rig if the door is open in flight.

Could you cite the particular FAR, please? I can't find it in my copy.
Also, could you cite the FAR that says observers have to wear parachutes? All I can find is that observers have to have (FAA-approved) seats and can't use the floor of the aircraft as a seat.
Mark

[riggerrob 558]

Some Supplementary Type Certificates - for jump doors on Cessnas - require the pilot to wear a parachute when the door is open.
This is primarily because of the risk of a pre-maturely open parachute tearing the tail off the airplane.
Many pilots of twin-engine jump planes chose not to wear parachutes because they are too far from the door to exit in an emergency.
The cockpit door in a Twin Otter does not count, because it is too close to the propeller.

[markbaur 0]

Quote

Some Supplementary Type Certificates - for jump doors on Cessnas - require the pilot to wear a parachute when the door is open.

If it takes an STC to require the pilot to wear a rig, that means there is no FAR.
Perhaps someone who knows of such an FAR could cite it.
Mark
Gold Seal CFII-ASMEL, CFI-G, CFI-H, etc.

[diverdriver 5]

Ok, after saying it and then having to dig for my answer what I have found in the FARs is the requirement for airworthiness. The pilot must follow all posted placards and limitations. So, if an airplane has been modified by STC or removal of the door then there will be a placard or limitation put on the airplane. If the form 337 (STC form) has the requirement (or limitation) that all occupants must wear a single harness dual container parachute OR an approved emergency bail out rig then by FAR it has to be followed even though it isn't spelled out exactly in FAR Part 91 or 105.
Looking at Advisory Circular 105-2C Section 14.C says:

Quote

B. Operational Requirements. The pilot in command is solely responsible for the operational requirements of FAR Part 91 to include the special operating limitations and placards required for flight with the door open or removed.

And yes, this is on my website under Supplements in the Regulations section.
Hope this helps a bit.
Chris Schindler
ATP/CFII
D-19012
www.DiverDriver.com

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

in all my time in the airforce we have always had to comply with faa rules and regulations...

You are mostly correct Wingi. Most of that falls under the general rule that any military commander can make rules that are MORE restrictive but not less than public law. When doing military operations OUTSIDE of a "MOA" or Military Operations Area all FAA regs must be complied with UNLESS a NOTAM is filed and approved by the Flight Standards District Office. They had a huge Hub Bub about this a few years ago when an A-6 Intruder was flying low level training out in Washington State and had a mid air with a crop duster. Of course... the military pilots ejected and lived. The crop duster went down with the ship. By all rights the military crew did nothing wrong.They were flying along a training route....with a NOTAM filed. However, the crop dusters had been bitching for years that it was costing them money to avoid those areas. They took to ignoring the NOTAM and it eventually caught up with this guy. The Military must comply with FAA regs......unless they are outside "military" airspace and have a NOTAM...or waiver....and everything is waiverable...."I only have a C license, so I don't know shit..right?"-Clay

[PhreeZone 15]

Chris... so if in the STC it was not stated that the pilot MUST wear a rig, then the pilot would not be breaking any FAR's if they did not right?
ie. A 182 with a internal sliding Lexan door that can be closed by the pilot after jumpers have exited if the STC says the pilot is not required to wear a bailout? Or how about tailgates like a Skyvan, are they required?
I wish you would step back from that ledge my friend... ~3EB

[diverdriver 5]

Do you have a specific STC in mind? I don't have my old one in front of me. My understanding was that the FAA would approve the STC with the stipulation on there. Now, if there is an STC that does not have it in there your statement could be possible. Not sure I'll run out and chuck my emergency rig just yet though. If you have ANY question about it I would call the local FSDO office and talk with someone. And if you're not sure then wear the rig. There's no law AGAINST wearing it that I've heard of. I imagine I'll be calling our FSDO tomorrow also on this topic to get some more guidance.
Just like the seatbelt debate took a few turns this might come back to the point we're at now (wearing the rig) but for a different section of the FARs or ACs.
Chris Schindler
ATP/CFII
D-19012
www.DiverDriver.com

[markbaur 0]

Okay, the answer is:
No FAR requires a pilot to wear a rig just because he is carrying jumpers or because the door is open. A Piper Cub, for example, can be flown with the door open, and neither pilot nor passenger is required to wear a parachute.
As riggerrob pointed out, some jump-door STCs require the pilot to wear a parachute if the door is open in flight. Some STCs may also require observers to wear parachutes (although if you are flying Cessnas, your observer is probably illegally sitting on the floor), but others are silent on the issue.
But what is legal is not necessarily prudent. There has never been a successful Mr. Bill after a catastrophic airframe failure.
Mark

[diverdriver 5]

Well, no FAR specifically says you must wear a rig but it says you have to follow the placards. If the placard is there because of the STC then you are violating a FAR by not wearing it. After emailing with Ed Scott at USPA he confirmed there ARE STCs that do not require an emergency rig. And as you pointed out, what is legal by FAR is not necessarily prudent. Are we saying the same thing now?
Do you remember where the last attempted pilot Mr. Bill was? Seems I remember Israel being the place but I could be way off. It was out of a Porter too, wasn't it?
Chris Schindler
ATP/CFII
D-19012
www.DiverDriver.com

[algboy 0]

Here's the latest as of today from AP:
TUCSON (AP) -- The pilot of a civilian plane that collided with an Army plane managed to regain control of his Cessna so the four English tourists inside could parachute out to safety before he made an emergency landing.
However, the midair collision at 3,000 feet sent the Army plane crashing into the dry Santa Cruz riverbed in Marana, about 20 miles north of Tucson. Chief Warrant Officer 4 Lowell K. Timmons, 45, was killed in the Friday crash.
He was piloting the Army plane for the Golden Knights parachute team, based in Fort Bragg, N.C.
The pilot of the Cessna managed to land his damaged plane safely at Marana Skydiving Center, where the flight originated, said owner Tony Frost.
The incident remained under investigation Sunday.
The National Transportation Safety Board said it could take nine to 12 months before the agency determines the cause of the collision or who was responsible. Inquiries also are being conducted by the U.S. Army Safety Center of Fort Rucker, Ala., and the Federal Aviation Administration.
Frost said the English tourists -- two men and two women ages 30 to 45 -- were experienced jumpers who were practicing for Marana's annual International Parachuting Competition this week.
They jumped after the collision badly damaged the left wing and rear cabin of the Cessna 182, he said.
Four of the Army's Golden Knights parachutists had already jumped from the UV-20A Pilatus Porter when it and the Cessna collided.
Frost would not identify the English customers or the Cessna's pilot, but praised him for landing safely.
"The plane was damaged enough that the young man who was flying it did an exceptional job of bringing it down. He had a parachute, too, so he could have just as easily jumped. But we try not to do that, only as a last resort," he said.
"If he had jumped out, we could have had God knows how many fatalities someplace on the ground."
Frost said his pilot did not appear at fault.
Officials with the U.S. Army Recruiting Command said Timmons was "an experienced pilot, rated on eight different types of Army aircraft." He was a 16-year Army veteran.
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Joe E Lewis

[markbaur 0]

Yeah, we're saying the same thing.
206, Holland.
Mark