0
SkydiveJack

FAA to fine Lodi $664,000

Recommended Posts

Quote

I'm a student yet and I myself would be terrified at having to jump low to the ground if the engine quit. Could I get stable in time? Would my chute inflate fully? Could I land in a clearing?

Gotta keep those planes serviced.....period.

S&S



Agreed on the service...but you still need to get comfortable getting out and getting open quickly in a situation like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Separately, the Federal Aviation Administration also proposed fining an owner of a California parachute jumping operation $664,000 for flying a plane more than 2,600 times with critical equipment overdue for replacement and without making required inspections.



FWIW, a $664k fine is way over the top for a family business.

Fines to scheduled airlines are offset by the subsidies that the federal government grants to many hard pressed locations, so in reality it's a only reduction of their subsidy. This action is your jumping dollars leaving the DZ for Washington DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Separately, the Federal Aviation Administration also proposed fining an owner of a California parachute jumping operation $664,000 for flying a plane more than 2,600 times with critical equipment overdue for replacement and without making required inspections.



FWIW, a $664k fine is way over the top for a family business.

Fines to scheduled airlines are offset by the subsidies that the federal government grants to many hard pressed locations, so in reality it's a only reduction of their subsidy. This action is your jumping dollars leaving the DZ for Washington DC.



Is it really? It's about $13.61 for every life he regarded as less important than saving the money doing the inspections and replacing the parts.

2,121 flights times 23 pax (as if Bill really limits to 23) = 48,783 slots

$664,000/48,783=$13.61

Hell if he charged a $20 slot he might have made a profit.

It's nice of the FAA not to go after the pilots who flew those loads.......
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This action is your jumping dollars leaving the DZ for Washington DC.


For every hour a DZ flies a Twin Otter they have to ship $1800 to $2000 to Washington in fuel tax. So there is nothing new about sending your skydiving dollars to Washington D.C. The difference in the case of this fine, it is for cheating on the records and lying to the paying customers.

And let’s keep our eye on the ball. This is not about United, American or some other airline. This is about a Drop Zone operation that flies skydivers. If you want to talk about what is going on in other fields of aviation go to a board that is set up for that purpose.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This may be one of many inquiries that the FAA does a a result of the NTSB recommendations.

The attachment labeled A-08-63-68 is the one that directs the FAA to conduct more inspections of skydiving operations.

For more discussion about how the NTSB, FAA and USPA have changed their respective, perspectives on the industry see:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3330031

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

For every hour a DZ flies a Twin Otter they have to ship $1800 to $2000 to Washington in fuel tax.



Huh? Somethings wrong with that equation. An Otter burns about 30 gallons per load, flying three loads per hour, for 90 gallons of gas per hour. Jet-A fuel runs about $4 a gallon, so that's about $360 for an hour of fuel.

What percentage of that is taxes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Huh? Somethings wrong with that equation.



I think Sparky was just trying to make a valid point, even if his math might be a little off.

To put it into more perspective, the FAA can fine up to $10,000 per violation per every flight flown.
So the fine works out to be around $320.00 per flight or around $80.00 per violation per flight.
$664,000/2100/4
So actually, I don't know why people are so up in arms defending Lodi. In reallity his fine could have been $84 million.
HE GOT OFF EASY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This is not about United, American or some other airline. This is about a Drop Zone operation that flies skydivers.


I was drawing the comparison because a fine that high is typical of a scheduled airline with much higher revenues than your typical weekend DZO. A fine this high is closer to a death blow, not a penalty.

Quote

If you want to talk about what is going on in other fields of aviation go to a board that is set up for that purpose.


You really should consider decaf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People always complain that fines are "just a drop in the bucket" and aren't big enough to hurt and send a strong message.

This one actually does; that's probably a good thing, especially considering the skydiving record in aircraft safety. I know that over the years I've jumped out of some pretty scary airplanes (yeah, I'm as stupid as a whole lot of skydivers that way). And those are only the ones that looked scary. What's under the covers is what really matters.

It might suck dealing with the FAA, but it probably beats just trusting pilots and owners to maintain their aircraft appropriately.

Wendy P.
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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

People always complain that fines are "just a drop in the bucket" and aren't big enough to hurt and send a strong message.

This one actually does; that's probably a good thing, especially considering the skydiving record in aircraft safety. I know that over the years I've jumped out of some pretty scary airplanes (yeah, I'm as stupid as a whole lot of skydivers that way). And those are only the ones that looked scary. What's under the covers is what really matters.

It might suck dealing with the FAA, but it probably beats just trusting pilots and owners to maintain their aircraft appropriately.

Wendy P.



Maybe if the FAA came down hard on more operators who are this negligent in maintaining their planes, we could trust the pilots and owners a bit more.
"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's nice of the FAA not to go after the pilots who flew those loads.......





I had the same thought, and as one of our more astute 'old-timers' pointed out to me...


91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.










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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

D-1?...really? :D:D:D



Never noticed that on his posts. Pretty disrespectful.

skydives - you really ought to change that.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You want me to do your taxes?

Sparky



Depends on the direction in which you will be shifting the decimals.;)
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

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