0
SkydiveJack

FAA to fine Lodi $664,000

Recommended Posts

Quote

I'm pro lodi, so take this comment for what you will.

Bill can be an asshole, but he's done more for skydiving then anyone I have ever met.

Was there corrosion found on the wing, or was there no note of inspection, or what.

What were the critical parts that needed replacing?? were they fucked, or past there manufactured life limits, or past there recomended life limit. Or had they been inspected by a mechanic and deemed ok?

It would be great to get some more facts on this, if anyone has got any?? Pm if need be.

Has this plane been grounded?? or is this a report from last year??



First, go learn about aircraft maintenance requirements before spouting off. The FAA doesn't arbitrarily fine people for going beyond "reccommendations". If they slap you with a fine - especially a big one - there's a reason for it.

Second, you ask if the plane had been grounded. The fact is the plane SHOULD'VE been grounded since life limited parts were beyond their limit. That's the point. Bill apparently flew the plane in question well beyond those limits.

Finally - and nothing against Bill personally - this is the kind of sh*t that keeps us under the FAA's spotlight. You haven't been around long enough to see the pattern, but many of us have. The FAA is famous for "stepped up" enforcement actions within specific industries or activities after discovering something like this. And the fact that skydiving as a industry has an longstanding bad rep when it comes to maintenance makes the situation worse.

Look, kid. Even if operating the aircraft with timed out cables wasn't dangerous (and it is), the fact is Bill's actions WILL bring unwarranted scrutiny to us all in one way or another.

Here's a great example of just how closely we are watched.

A know a skydiver that operates an import brokerage business here in Texas. One day some customs guys came to his business to get copies of some customs documents for a case they were working. One of the feds sees some skydiving photos on the wall and says to my friend, "you a skydiver?". My friend says "yes", and then the guy says "you know Roger Nelson?".:o True story. The feds compare notes, ya know.

If you are willing to ride on illegal airplanes for your altitude fix because Bill has done so much "for the sport", that's fine with me. However, Mr. Dause's blatant disregard for the rules hurts the rest of the DZO's out there, and that eventually has a negative impact on all of us.

Now go eat your puppy chow.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm as big a Sport Death fan as anyone, but those days are mostly over. If you go in on takeoff, riding a plane after knowing about stuff like this, people will still feel bad for you...but they'll also think you're kind of a dumbass for even being on it.



Leave it to Mr. K to sum it all up so well!!
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm pro lodi, so take this comment for what you will.

Bill can be an asshole, but he's done more for skydiving then anyone I have ever met.



I'm pro safety, so take this comment for what you will.

Bill can be an asshole (according to you), and he's done more to hurt skydiving with this FAA action than anyone I have ever met.

Based on your comments, I have a question for you.

Would you be willing to pay your rigger 25% to 50% less for a reserve repack if he just pencil packed it every time? I mean, what could go wrong? The canopy was fine when it was put in there the first time.


Think of all the money you could save for your funeral!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

What were the critical parts that needed replacing?? were they fucked, or past there manufactured life limits, or past there recomended life limit. Or had they been inspected by a mechanic and deemed ok?

It would be great to get some more facts on this, if anyone has got any??



FACT #1 - All the items listed by the FAA, whether a Life Limited item or a Special Inspection (i.e. the corrosion inspection of the wing) are found in PSM 1-6-11, which is the Structural Life Limit Manual for the Twin Otter. MANDATORY COMPLIANCE

FACT #2 - Back in the day there were many operators that did not comply with PSM 1-6-11, because it was not part of the Limitations Section of the Maintenance Manual. The Limitations Section is the only part of the Maintenance Manual that is FAA Approved and technically if not listed there it could be deemed RECOMMENDED by the operator.
So, what did the FAA do? They issued an Airworthiness Directive, in 2008, that stated that ALL operators MUST comply with the requirements of PSM 1-6-11. The FAA does not take to kindly when someone blatently ignores an AD.


One of the most curious things about this whole thread is how the one guy who asks the most critical question gets trashed by everybody else for asking it.

Nothing in the FAA report says that the elements in question were unsafe, only that they "overdue for replacement" or not inspected as required.

Being overdue for replacement is a figment of the FAA's bureaucratic imagination, and not necessarily related to reality.

No one has yet said whether the cables in question were no longer serviceable, only that, according to an arbitrary FAA rule, they should have been replaced by now.

Many FAA maintenance regulations and requirements are completely nuts, and are not based on reality, and given that Bill frequently jumped from that plane and probably flew it too, it was also in HIS best interest for it to be airworthy -- even if it was not necessarily FAA-compliant.

This is in a lot of ways a paradigmic example of the current assassination technique of acting on the seriousness of the charge instead of the depth of the evidence. I guess it is natural for parachutists to jump to conclusions, but it's really kind of appalling that so many people on this thread seem to think that just because the FAA says it was a horrific crime, then it must be true.

And yes, if those cables and spars were unserviceable, if they were in fact in dangerous condition, then yes, it was a horrific crime.

But not even the FAA suggests that, as far as I can tell -- only that Bill didn't follow the letter of their rules. No one yet, in all of the blah blah so far on this thread, has yet established in any way shape or form that Bill didn't follow the intent of those rules, in his own way, as he so often does with everything.

So let's try to maintain a little perspective here as we explore the situation:

1) Bill allegedly did not comply with several different FAA requirements, and he is paying the price for that alleged non-compliance.

2) Bill, insofar as I understand the reports and allegations, was not accused, charged, found guilty of, or fined for operating an non-airworthy or otherwise unsafe aircraft.

3) Accepting government pronouncements at face value and without critical examination of the premises underlying those pronouncements is like jumping a rig assembled and packed by a whuffo, and guaranteed by that same whuffo to work properly.

B|
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Nothing in the FAA report says that the elements in question were unsafe, only that they "overdue for replacement" or not inspected as required.



Please become a Senator, because otherwise your statement means a whole bunch of useless crap.
When you start making the rules then you can make comments like that.
Bill tried to get around them and got pinched.
End of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

according to an arbitrary FAA rule, they should have been replaced by now.



It may be an overly conservative limitation, but definitely not arbitrary.

Such things are determined by analysis and testing.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are joking right? You need to go to this link, the official FAA press release:

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=11980

Ok you have alot of years in skydiving but don't you realise FAA Airworthiness Directives are only issued for items that concern the safety and to prevent failures. The cable listed that is talked about just breaks. In the past 10 years it has happened several time to Otters, that is why the FAA made it manditory.

LaHood plainly states that these actions put the lives of parachutists at risk.

Yes there was corrosion found on the spars, yes the cable were bad. If you doubt it call Rocky Mountain Aircraft in Canada. They were the guys who removed the corrosion, made the repairs, replaced the cable that were bad.

There is no doubt what happened, the FAA would not make such a high fine and the two highest profile people in the US Government Department of Transportation would take the time to comment on this one little incident out of the thousands of incidents that occur daily.

Oh, if you would like to keep it in perspective and you suggested in your comment.....How many other DZ's flying Otters have done, been caught for this same thing???? Hmm Perris, Eloy, Chicago just to name a few fly Otters and bet you they replace their cables on time and comply with FAA Airworthiness Directives on time... They also get inspected by the FAA and manage to pass...........hmmm where is your perspective now?

You go right ahead and defend Bill some more, get your $10 jumps in.

I will stick with the guys who have not been repeatedly fined by the FAA for the past 10 years and had his licenses suspended by the FAA 3 times in the past 6 years.....both mechanical IA and Pilot suspended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The following is a "side-neutral" observation:

FWIW, an FAA violation/fine is not final unless it is not appealed; but it can be appealed. The first level of appeal is to the FAA itself, at the end of which there may or may not be a compromise settlement. If the case is not settled there, the respondent (the party that was fined) can have an evidentiary hearing (a trial, basically) before an administrative law judge (ALJ). After all administrative-level appeals have been exhausted, a further appeal may be taken to the U.S. District Court. And any verdict by a US District Court may be appealed to the US Court of Appeals.

So think of an FAA violation and fine as similar to an indictment by a prosecutor. The respondent, if it so chooses, can still have its day in court - i.e., put the FAA to its proofs and offer counter-evidence in its own defense, with further levels of appeals after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the way I figure the FAA just had a comb so far up bills ass over the last year that everything with the aircraft MX must be up to date and by the book now... So this is likely the best time to be jumping in Lodi!!! See ya there this weekend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for explaining this to me, and not shooting down the questions, your correct with only 3 years in the sport i am still learning.

To be fair though lets hold are fucking horses here, 2 of the biggest commerical airlines in europe got fined for this kind of stuff http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-170603.html this is easyjet there slightly bigger than lodi, do i think its right, not really .. but will i jump at lodi still, damm straight... if you have met bill talk to me about what you think of the guy, not from the rumours that you have heard.

I have no idea about maintiance scehdules or how it works, unlike all the other posters on here, who seem so very sure there planes they fly in are 110% good to go all the time,

My head up my ass but then the sun shines from it,

Uless your checking the dz's maintinace schedules personally, most of you have no idea about the planes that you get into each week, maybe we'll hear more of this when the faa comes to visit your dz!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Uless your checking the dz's maintinace schedules personally, most of you have no idea about the planes that you get into each week, maybe we'll hear more of this when the faa comes to visit your dz!!



This is one of the points that is trying to be made here-- you shouldn't HAVE to know the ins, outs, and every nook and cranny of the mx records of your jump plane, or commercial airplane you take, etc, etc. Because there are FAA rules/regs for business to follow you have faith that the owner/operator responsible for that upkeep is doing his or her duty to be on par with everything.

And I'm sure we'll hear more about it after FAA makes it a point to visit more DZ's, which is another point trying to be made in this thread-- huge spotlight is going to be put on DZ's and operating aircraft. Not a bad thing, obviously, since people should be on top of it and not afraid of the FAA coming around to take a peak, but not good to call negative attention to the sport when it gets enough of it to begin with.

PS-- I think most of the people commenting here have been at and jumped at Lodi. Have you?
Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, this whole debate is useless.

One, Dause was fined by the FAA
Two, FAA states the repairs were made and AD's complied with.

If he was not in error Bil would have certainly fought it and not made the repairs and inspections.

The whole point is this became a national story, high fines for just plain neglagence.

Our sport does not need this, we do not need this. Now if you want more FAA involvement then please applaude Bill and his buddies who believe they don't have to go by the rules.

If you want to enjoy skydiving the way it is, then go by the rules, plain simple and easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Nothing in the FAA report says that the elements in question were unsafe, only that they "overdue for replacement" or not inspected as required.

Being overdue for replacement is a figment of the FAA's bureaucratic imagination, and not necessarily related to reality.

No one has yet said whether the cables in question were no longer serviceable, only that, according to an arbitrary FAA rule, they should have been replaced by now.



OK, what if I give you the angle where the cables were in good shape, and regularly inspected. If you want to call it OK to bust a life-limit on a component provided that you regualrly inspect, that's one thing, but then how do you explain the lack of the corrosion inspection on the wings? By your standard you can write your own maintence schedule so long as you closely monitor the over-timed components, but the wing inspection was just that, an inspection, and it wasn't done.

What are the chances that the cables were regularly inspected, if the regular inspections aren't even done?

Either way, none of it is OK. The cables have an AD on them because there has been a history of failures beyond a certain date, so the AD calls for replacement by that date. It's not even like he was trying to hold until the next 100 hour or annual, it was 18 months and 2100+ loads on the timed out cables.

If you look at the link to the King Air accident, you'll notice that a simple inspection for corrosion on the fuel pump drive shaft would have revealed significant corrosion and the need for replacement. In that case, Bill again ignored a requirement for a corrosion inspection, and that time it brought down a plane.

The report also states that P&W Canada prohibits skydiving operators from going to on an 'on condition' maintenence program, but this appears to be exactly what Bill is doing.

Ignoring corrosion inspections bit him once, and it seems that he learned nothing becasue less than 2 years later he gets popped for skipping additional corrosion inspections. What a guy, skydiving should come together and thank him for his years of service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Thanks for explaining this to me, and not shooting down the questions, your correct with only 3 years in the sport i am still learning.

To be fair though lets hold are fucking horses here, 2 of the biggest commerical airlines in europe got fined for this kind of stuff http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-170603.html this is easyjet there slightly bigger than lodi, do i think its right, not really .. but will i jump at lodi still, damm straight... if you have met bill talk to me about what you think of the guy, not from the rumours that you have heard.

I have no idea about maintiance scehdules or how it works, unlike all the other posters on here, who seem so very sure there planes they fly in are 110% good to go all the time,

My head up my ass but then the sun shines from it,

Uless your checking the dz's maintinace schedules personally, most of you have no idea about the planes that you get into each week, maybe we'll hear more of this when the faa comes to visit your dz!!



You're welcome, and we're all still learning - at least I am. Unfortunately there is a long history of aircraft maintenance issues in the sport (and numerous crashes attributed to it), and you're right, the average jumper is never exposed to any evidence that a plane is being maintained properly.

There are guys out there following the rules. I know a DZO that grounded his leased and about-to-buy primary aircraft after a pre-purchase inspection showed it wasn't technically legal. He lost a lot of revenue with airlift interruptions while rearranging his aircraft situation, but his customers understood that he was looking out for them.

I think if you suspect there are maintenance issues, as a jumper of that bird you should be presented maintenance records upon request. Any DZO that is properly maintining the bird should have no problem plopping the records in your lap.

5 left and cut.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The report also states that P&W Canada prohibits skydiving operators from going to on an 'on condition' maintenence program, but this appears to be exactly what Bill is doing.



Please do not get things mixed up.
ALL skydive operators, in the States, operate "ON CONDITION".
Remember that "ON CONDITION" means that components have to meet conditions set forth by the manufacture in order to remain in service.
(Performance/Operational & inspection requirements).
Even ON CONDITION you still have to comply with Life Limited Items.
P&W does not prohibit an ON CONDITION program. They just will not Approve one for skydiving operations. In the states this means very little since skydive ops fall under Part 91 and in Part 91 you do not have to comply with the Manufactures recommendations, (i.e. TBOs)

Other than that I agree with what you have posted.
You can only see 1/3rd of the Elevator and Rudder cables during an inspection. Maybe 3 feet more if you pull up the cargo floor in back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

According to the USPA Regional Director that jumps there, no they don't enforce seat belt use.



Somehow this just doesn't sit right. Anyone else?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK..................

Would any of you defend Delta, United or any other Airline if you found out that they were flying aircraft in that condition???

I doubt it, this is no different.
.......I hereby reject your reality and instead choose to insert my own!


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sucked in to this asshole. No matter how cheap the tickets were, when u pay for a ride to height i am getting on the plane expecting that that plane has been serviced and considered airworthy. Any guy who puts profits before the safety of the people who are lining his pockets is a absolute wanker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

.... Any guy who puts profits before the safety of the people who are lining his pockets is a absolute wanker.




regardless of the truth of the situation, I don't think there is much "lining of Bill's pockets" going on. And even if there was, he doesn't have much opportunity to spend it (except to defend stupid lawsuits from kids who cant listen when told not to jump up on exit) seeing as he is there all day every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

OK..................

Would any of you defend Delta, United or any other Airline if you found out that they were flying aircraft in that condition???

I doubt it, this is no different.



most of europe seems to continue to use easy jet despite, the grounding of there enitire fleet?? take it for what you will!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


PS-- I think most of the people commenting here have been at and jumped at Lodi. Have you?



Yes i was there for a 40 days from October to november 2009 around 100 jumps , and for 60 days june - august of this year 300 jumps. Thats fun jumping and a little coaching on the side...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Mr. ts1962:

Here we go again. Some anonymous expert - you - on dropzone.com suggests that he knows the position of "the USPA Board of Directors" and "all the regional directors." Oh yeah? You are wrong. You should cut it out. If you have an issue with this, pick up your phone and call me.

Randy Allison
USPA Mideastern Regional Director
586.698.8110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
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.

0