Cessna 182 - 5 Skydivers

[jp-pinto 0]

Hi guys, just for further reference:

If you want to use you Cessna 182 for skydiving, we have the right solution for you:

• AFFORDABLE – for a fair price you can upgrade your plane, increasing its versatility and commercial value;


• EASY TO INSTALL - we supply all the paperwork and any Part 145 workshop can perform the job.
  Shall you prefer to do it with us, the people from our own Part 145 organisation will be glad to do it.



• EASA APPROVED - This STC is fully EASA approved, so you won’t have to worry checking the EASA database to confirm whether the STC is validated or not.



• FAST - When you decide to upgrade your aircraft you don’t want to wait for ages… and you don’t have to.
  In a few days after you confirm your order, you’ll receive the paperwork in order to let you move forward with the modification.
  If you prefer, we can do the all job in a working week.



• PRACTICAL - Simple and practical is what you expect to have, so that’s what you’ll get!

Feel free to visit http://www.iac-aero.com for further information about the company.

[islander 0]

"I've heard of 5 in a 182 and 6 in a 206 here in Australia, to both of which I say "fuck that""...
I am sorry for saing that, but on this forume we would like to hear something more convenient at "the fuck it".
I worked in the Land of Ozz and jumped C-182 with 5 jumpers (2 tandems + cameraman). Neither pilots nor skydivers compained about it. If you would consider the weight of seats and interior that were taken off for a skydiving conversion, you would easily find out that that weight would be equal to a weight of one extra skydiver.
The Take Off Weight is the matter, everything else is the BS.

Blue Sky

[peek 20]

islander

"... If you would consider the weight of seats and interior that were taken off for a skydiving conversion, you would easily find out that that weight would be equal to a weight of one extra skydiver....

I would really like to see some numbers that confirm that, from the Weight and Balance document from an actual jump plane conversion. On a C182 I converted, I did the weighing of the components added and removed.

Some examples, weight is in pounds (not a complete list):
Right yoke - 2
Right front seat - 14.5
Back seat - 27
Fairings - 17

Adding the jump step adds more than a few pounds. Changing the door to a jump door may add or subtract weight depending on the door.

Plus, some of the replacement items are heavier than the original. The original carpet on the floor is very light, but the big foam mats that we usually install are much heavier. The reinforced rear bulkhead is at least a few pounds more. Changing to a large oil cooler is 4 pounds more.

Surprisingly, the entire headliner is only a few pounds. Removing the side interior panels removes some weight, but people usually add something back like carpet.

Even if you strip out everything you can, it isn't as much as we think, plus, it is a pretty ugly airplane with things to snag your rig on.

[ChrisD 0]

islander

"I've heard of 5 in a 182 and 6 in a 206 here in Australia, to both of which I say "fuck that""...
I am sorry for saing that, but on this forume we would like to hear something more convenient at "the fuck it".
I worked in the Land of Ozz and jumped C-182 with 5 jumpers (2 tandems + cameraman). Neither pilots nor skydivers compained about it. If you would consider the weight of seats and interior that were taken off for a skydiving conversion, you would easily find out that that weight would be equal to a weight of one extra skydiver.
The Take Off Weight is the matter, everything else is the BS.

NO, everything else is not BS!

Y all talk about W/B and equivalent weight, but none of you talk about how these aircraft fly! The only BS here is from the hundreds of armchair pilots that have never flown a Cessna at, near, and above gross and have something happen!!! Nor do many of you have a clue as to how they react for slow flight practice, stall, spin practice!!! (At these higher weights.)

Until you have been in one of these and actually experienced this, well I feel sorry for those that think they know what their speaking about, trust me you don't!!!

And this goes out especially to the hundreds, if not thousands of Cessna pilots that have never practiced these maneuvers at or near gross and who are not current with same. You have quite a wake up call coming you way,....

IMO many need to be current and practice this skill, it's not too much to ask!!! As "consumers" of skydiving products asking AT the VERY least if our pilots have practiced stall spin recovery, till they throw up, within the last 90 days is something that everyone should ask of their pilots before they board the aircraft!!! This is a skill and needs to be practiced!! And in the grand scheme of things is cheep money to spend.

C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[dzswoop717 5]

It sounds like you have experience in this situation. Have you had a stall, spin occurrence in a fully loaded Cessna as pilot in command or do you practice these maneuvers in a Cessna that is at gross weight? I am curious to know how you handled the situation. I guess I am an armchair pilot. I have never practiced over gross weight stalls or spins. Do you load the plane with sand bags or do you just practice with a full load of jumpers?

[ChrisD 0]

dzswoop717

It sounds like you have experience in this situation. Have you had a stall, spin occurrence in a fully loaded Cessna as pilot in command or do you practice these maneuvers in a Cessna that is at gross weight? I am curious to know how you handled the situation. I guess I am an armchair pilot. I have never practiced over gross weight stalls or spins. Do you load the plane with sand bags or do you just practice with a full load of jumpers?

In the past I have done this with overweight inspectors and other pilots, and all at considerable altitude. I am not recommending that you actually wind up the aircraft, especially those that are not rated for intentional spins. The slow flight and stall spin entry are generally sufficient to wake up any pilot that hasn't experienced this first hand. The rapidity of the wing drop, the sluggishness of the controls, and the ensuing altitude loss are so different as compared with "normal" , this is why I persist with this topic when and where I can. It seems that until the individual pilots actually experience this for themselves, they do not believe...

The first time I actually did this in a 182 I was shocked that this aircraft, which beforehand I had always considered to be very predictable, acted the way it did. Night and day don't come close to describing this difference. This is why such a little training goes a long way.

Most pilots will understand the phrase about landing "straight ahead." But they don't always understand why? After some actual practice at or near gross, you will understand why. This is my point.

I would never recommend or even suggest loading an aircraft with a load that could shift, when the Army trains their helo pilots they use filled jerry cans to simulate operation at full loads, jerry cans that are individually tied down with 4 attachment points as an example. Nor am I advocating intentionally loading above gross. I am advocating practicing slow flight, and what is considered normal items for a flight review but with increased frequency and fat instructors. Perhaps next time yo might focus upon how the aircraft performs at the edges of its envelope as compared with trying to bait me with how to load an aircraft.

This is the point, how the aircraft performs and the relative lack of recent experience, or any experience, operating under those conditions. IMO , not these endless side debates.

In the interim, every skydiver has the right to ask "how long has it been since you practiced any of this kind of stuff" to any pilot! And if the answer is in years, then I might think twice about boarding that aircraft. Most pilots I associate with are proud of their unusual attitude recovery skills, time spent leaning and teaching conventional skills as well as structured, additional, yearly aerobatic skills. They realize that this is a skill that needs to be practiced to be proficient and they find this instruction and ways of funding this as well. But this is just my opinion and real world experience.



C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

islander

... If you would consider the weight of seats and interior that were taken off for a skydiving conversion, you would easily find out that that weight would be equal to a weight of one extra skydiver.
The Take Off Weight is the matter, everything else is the BS.

Ok, it's equal to the weight of one extra person. Considering that we are putting 5 people (4 jumpers plus the pilot) into a plane originally intended to carry 4 total, where does the capacity come for the 6th person (5th jumper)?

The 182 I have the most jumps from (and a bunch of hours as PIC) is placarded for "Max weight of passengers and equipment." IIRC, that number is 950# - I don't remember exactly. It's a straight tail ('58 maybe?)
5 people (4 jumpers plus pilot) at or near 200# each is over that maximum.

While there are mods available to increase legal Max Takeoff weight, do any of them allow enough extra to put an extra person on (exit weight approaching 200#)?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[airtwardo 6]

wolfriverjoe

***... If you would consider the weight of seats and interior that were taken off for a skydiving conversion, you would easily find out that that weight would be equal to a weight of one extra skydiver.
The Take Off Weight is the matter, everything else is the BS.

Ok, it's equal to the weight of one extra person. Considering that we are putting 5 people (4 jumpers plus the pilot) into a plane originally intended to carry 4 total, where does the capacity come for the 6th person (5th jumper)?

The 182 I have the most jumps from (and a bunch of hours as PIC) is placarded for "Max weight of passengers and equipment." IIRC, that number is 950# - I don't remember exactly. It's a straight tail ('58 maybe?)
5 people (4 jumpers plus pilot) at or near 200# each is over that maximum.

While there are mods available to increase legal Max Takeoff weight, do any of them allow enough extra to put an extra person on (exit weight approaching 200#)?

THAT'S what needs to be made clear - it's not about number of people, it's the weight. And just as, if not more critical - the weight & balance.

I got pretty good at estimating people's weight with gear - if the tanks were full on a hot day - sorry can't take the whole choir!

~ ChrisD does make a good point about being current on unusual recovery...if you're a jumper dumper it behooves you to get & stay familiar with flyin' fat and shit going sideways.

Since we owned an aerobatic bi-wing, I took some lessons that transferred unusual attitude skills over to beat up Cessnas quite well.

And about the 'straight ahead' thing - it's also a good idea not to fiddle with any power setting until you have enough altitude to glide back to the runway - a considerably higher percentage of engine failure occurs when the RPM is changed.

As a jumper that flys...I always wince a bit when it's hot, heavy & slow and a skydiver driver pulls power while still on a straight heading following take off.

Give it another minute - add some marks on the alt needle & kick her back downwind before lowering the volume.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[pchapman 261]

About 182's with 5 jumpers:

I don't know certification standards well but I'd be surprised that there's a legal placard restricting the weight of passengers and equipment, regardless of the actual weight of the aircraft. After all, normally only weights like the max takeoff weight legally apply, and the payload weight available just depends on how heavy the aircraft actually is (either calculated or recently weighed, depending on circumstances).

C-182 gross weights varied a lot by year and model number. 2650 lbs for the early ones, then 2800, then 2950 by the N model in '69, and later 3100, although empty weights crept up too.

I'm used to 5 jumpers in a 182, but that's for a very specific set of conditions on the group of six I've jumped like that:

a) widebody
b) mid to late 60's models with a decent empty weight
c) STC for increased gross weight to 2950 lbs like later models, from having the Wing-X wing extensions (that include added spar straps)
e) fuel for about one high and one low load plus presumably legal reserve
e) jumper average weight 165 lbs before gear.

With heavier jumpers, we'd be down to 4 jumpers. Still it was common to be running 2 tandem pairs and a camera flyer.

There were always small adjustments from plane to plane and pilot to pilot, load to load, since the weight without jumpers wasn't all the same.

Maybe there was a little fudging in terms of just how much personal gear weight allowance there was. (E.g, we didn't report to manifest if we were wearing 10 lbs of lead on that jump!) And of course not every jumper reports their actual weight rather than last year's ideal weight when at their fittest.

So technically I can't guarantee the planes weren't over gross. But in general there was a pretty strict system to keep loads reasonable and not make it like something we imagine from the '70s -- as long as the pilot thinks he can clear the trees, pile aboard.

Legal 5-jumper 182 operation can be tricky...

As for the seatbelt issue, I'm not sure whether there ever was an approval for 5 sets of belts on the floor. Maybe, maybe not. It may have been a case of installing belts many years ago on those aircraft, on the mounting points available, and the issue never being questioned again. After all, belts had to be different from when there were seats, so nothing was standard anyway. Transport Canada might have had interest in the door STC (a highly visible mod), and in making sure the maximum takeoff weight wasn't busted (the Operations Manual requires printouts of jumper weights & takeoff weight for all loads), but perhaps never much cared about seatbelt technicalities.

So that doesn't help the OP at all, since he was looking for specific approval for 5 sets of belts on the floor.

[Alexg3265 0]

At my home dz they run beefed up 182s that are more than capable of carrying 5 plus pilot... It's even equipped with 5 seatbelts. We run loads of 4 for spacing reasons alone. 5 is way too cramped... Especially when it comes time to turn around... The one with the wingtip extensions will get to 13 in a little under 15 min...

I was that kid jumping out if his tree house with a bed sheet. My dad wouldn't let me use the ladder to try the roof...

[riggerrob 558]

"... Transport Canada ... never much cared about seatbelt technicalities. ..."

[pchapman 261]

I think you have taken that statement out of the context of the specific situation I was talking about, Rob, which is changing the meaning a great deal.

= "I think... Rob.... is ... great" ??

Back when I was involved in the DZ operations more, I know Transport Canada would jump on you if you missed your 100 hr Cessna seat track AD inspection, but I never saw them question the fundamental basis of being allowed to have 5 jumpers. Nobody said, "Hey, does the original Type Certificate even allow that?" or "So, where do those belts attach anyway?". Maybe there was an approval, but I don't know.

[dzswoop717 5]

Man are you paranoid. I wasn't baiting you into anything. I was just wondering how you practice these maneuvers. If you are using over weight instructors in a 182 you will need to load him in with a fork lift to be at gross weight even with full tanks.The instructor would need to be 500+ pounds to even be close to gross weight. I agree with your opinion, just wondering how you accomplish the task. I personally don't practice slow flight or spins with passengers and I would need 1000lbs of cargo with my fat ass and full tanks in my current airplane to practice at gross weight. Just curious how you set up to practice.

[gowlerk 1,912]

Quote

But this is just my opinion and real world experience.

Chris, you often talk about your "real world experience", but you never state what that is. Others have asked, and you never answer. And your profile is blank. Once again, what experience do you have that qualifies you to speak on this or any other subject on any of the forums you like to spout off on?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[mjosparky 3]

Alexg3265

At my home dz they run beefed up 182s that are more than capable of carrying 5 plus pilot... It's even equipped with 5 seatbelts. We run loads of 4 for spacing reasons alone. 5 is way too cramped... Especially when it comes time to turn around... The one with the wingtip extensions will get to 13 in a little under 15 min...

And you know this as fact or that is what you where told? In 30 some years of jumping I have never seen paperwork for 5 jumpers in a 182. I am not saying it is not done but I have never seen it done with approval.
13,000 in under 15 min. might be doable with 4 jumpers but no way with 5. That is an average of almost 900 fpm.
You can be sure running 5 jumpers is not for the benefit of the jumpers.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

pchapman

About 182's with 5 jumpers:

I don't know certification standards well but I'd be surprised that there's a legal placard restricting the weight of passengers and equipment, regardless of the actual weight of the aircraft...

I don't know if it is a "legal" placard or not.
It's entirely possible that someone calculated the available weight with minimum fuel (one high load plus reserve) and stuck that number on the dash.

And so now our resident "Expert In Everything" is a Test Pilot too.

So when and where were these tests conducted?

At what weight?

Do you even know the max weight allowed for intentional spin entry? (hint #1 - It ain't max gross)

And do you know how difficult it is to spin a SEL Cessna? I'm not saying that it can't be done by accident, but intentionally entering a spin when the airplane is properly configured for it (hint #2 - search "utility category") takes some effort.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[DBCOOPER 1]

ChrisD

In the past I have done this with overweight inspectors and other pilots, and all at considerable altitude. I am not recommending that you actually wind up the aircraft, especially those that are not rated for intentional spins. The slow flight and stall spin entry are generally sufficient to wake up any pilot that hasn't experienced this first hand. The rapidity of the wing drop, the sluggishness of the controls, and the ensuing altitude loss are so different as compared with "normal" , this is why I persist with this topic when and where I can. It seems that until the individual pilots actually experience this for themselves, they do not believe...
C

So you saying that you can practice the stall spin entry without actually entering a spin? Or are you saying its ok to do it as long as you don't "wind it up"?

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

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

[riggerrob 558]

pchapman

I think you have taken that statement out of the context of the specific situation I was talking about, Rob, which is changing the meaning a great deal.

= "I think... Rob.... is ... great" ??

Back when I was involved in the DZ operations more, I know Transport Canada would jump on you if you missed your 100 hr Cessna seat track AD inspection, but I never saw them question the fundamental basis of being allowed to have 5 jumpers. Nobody said, "Hey, does the original Type Certificate even allow that?" or "So, where do those belts attach anyway?". Maybe there was an approval, but I don't know.

................................................................................

Apparently TC's standards vary radically between Ontario and B.C.
A significant number of B.C. - based jump planes either don't have enough seat-belts to strap in every skydiver ... or the seat-belts are too short ... or seat-belts are anchored to the floor too far forward of skydivers to restrain them during a forced-landing ... or the seat-belts are hidden so deeply that no-one can find them.

[Blis 1]

riggerrob

***I think you have taken that statement out of the context of the specific situation I was talking about, Rob, which is changing the meaning a great deal.

= "I think... Rob.... is ... great" ??

Back when I was involved in the DZ operations more, I know Transport Canada would jump on you if you missed your 100 hr Cessna seat track AD inspection, but I never saw them question the fundamental basis of being allowed to have 5 jumpers. Nobody said, "Hey, does the original Type Certificate even allow that?" or "So, where do those belts attach anyway?". Maybe there was an approval, but I don't know.

................................................................................

Apparently TC's standards vary radically between Ontario and B.C.
A significant number of B.C. - based jump planes either don't have enough seat-belts to strap in every skydiver ... or the seat-belts are too short ... or seat-belts are anchored to the floor too far forward of skydivers to restrain them during a forced-landing ... or the seat-belts are hidden so deeply that no-one can find them.

At my home DZ we have no seatbelts on 182... oh, 5 jumpers too

[jumpsracer 5]

I don't know if anyone is operating a C-182 with 5 but I happened to find an ad in August 81 issue of Skydiving: New Airah 6 place C-182's with FAA approval for this configuration.

[grue 1]

islander

"I've heard of 5 in a 182 and 6 in a 206 here in Australia, to both of which I say "fuck that""...
I am sorry for saing that, but on this forume we would like to hear something more convenient at "the fuck it".
I worked in the Land of Ozz and jumped C-182 with 5 jumpers (2 tandems + cameraman). Neither pilots nor skydivers compained about it. If you would consider the weight of seats and interior that were taken off for a skydiving conversion, you would easily find out that that weight would be equal to a weight of one extra skydiver.
The Take Off Weight is the matter, everything else is the BS.

I'm 6'3" and 100kg, putting me in with 4 other people who are small and light might technically be safe, but it'd probably be more cozy than I'd be willing to put up with in my old age.

cavete terrae.

[dzswoop717 5]

An early Cessna 185 has the exact same dimensions, airfoil, tail surfaces (except for larger dorsal fin) and fuselage size as an early straight tail 182. The 185 had a beefed up structure to handle the extra load that it could carry. They have useful loads in the 1600lb range. The 185 came with either an IO-470 260hp or an IO-520 300hp engine They also came with 6 seat belts from the factory. 185's carry 5 jumpers most of the time. It is cramped but it is legal and it is safe. I have hundreds of jumps from 185's with 5 jumpers on board. If a 182 has wing tip extensions that increase it's useful load and an engine conversion increasing hp to 260 or above it can theoretically carry 5 jumpers safely the same as a 185. The legal question I don't know the answer to. I do know that in the sixties wide body 182, they offered a child's seat that went in the cargo area which gave it a total of 6 seat belts. If you have a hot rod wide body 182, it may be possible to use the child seat paperwork to get the extra seat belt.
Another thing I have never read on here on the issue of weight and balance of a 182 jump plane is. With the passenger seat and yoke removed and a jumper sitting with his back against the control panel (ie:student posistion), the CG is already farther forward than anytime the plane is in normal seat configuration. You have just moved the cg farther forward than it is possible to do with the seat in place and occupied by a passenger. If you load the plane with the heaviest jumper in the front and the lightest jumper in the back and 2 middle weights in the middle sitting side by side , a 182 is well with in normal cg.

[ufk22 32]

mjosparky

***At my home dz they run beefed up 182s that are more than capable of carrying 5 plus pilot... It's even equipped with 5 seatbelts. We run loads of 4 for spacing reasons alone. 5 is way too cramped... Especially when it comes time to turn around... The one with the wingtip extensions will get to 13 in a little under 15 min...

And you know this as fact or that is what you where told? In 30 some years of jumping I have never seen paperwork for 5 jumpers in a 182. I am not saying it is not done but I have never seen it done with approval.
13,000 in under 15 min. might be doable with 4 jumpers but no way with 5. That is an average of almost 900 fpm.
You can be sure running 5 jumpers is not for the benefit of the jumpers.

SparkyThe paperwork doesn't approve the number of jumpers. The paperwork is for 5 approved seat belts for passengers/jumpers plus pilot seat belt. We have the paperwork for our 182. This has no effect on weight and balance issues. We haven't hauled 5 in the plane for a few years.

This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

[skydived19006 4]

Some of you may have fun with this. These are actual numbers for a real world airplane. I did these calculations a few years ago after an engine mod (520), and wing extensions. We put the airplane on scales. I also entered numbers that would push right up to the GTOW. Now, considering that all of my TIs weigh in excess of 200 lbs without a rig, we have a max student weight of 230, a pilot with rig in the 200 lb range, and fuel. There's potential for loading in excess of GTOW.

We may or may not have flown with 5 skydivers a time or two as well. If we did, at least four if them would have had to have been on the small side, and light fuel.

Let's see who can find the configuration that has a W&B problem.

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ