0
SkydiveJack

FAA to fine Lodi $664,000

Recommended Posts

Quote

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.



The strange thing is that the pilot is the first to arrive at the crash. You'd think pilots would be particularly conscientious about the airworthiness of the planes they fly.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When you take somebody up for hire, no matter how big or small, you are subject to the SAME rules and regs



Actually this couldn't be further from the truth. In a simplified version the airlines operate under part 121. Air charters usually part 135 and skydive operations under part 91. There is a tremendous difference between these. In fact I find it quite generous that skydive operations are allowed to operate as lax as they are under part 91.
Of course I know what you meant Lyra. That everybody has to follow the rules. Just know that everybody's rules are not the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I just remember the Perris crash, (I was working there when it happened)
>people blamed the DZ owner.........., HUH???? His own Daughter was on
>those planes daily....I doubt Ben would take a chance with her life!

No one intends to crash an airplane, or kill someone under canopy, or have their airplane fail. Nevertheless, aircraft maintenance/care is sometimes neglected even by people on the aircraft itself. When I first started skydiving, we had Cessnas that were in a perpetually poor state of repair - and were often flown by the owner himself. Eventually one crashed and killed the pilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

was he trying to kill himself by playing ruolette?



I would deem it the "ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN TO ME" Syndrome.
Operators will start pushing things back saying, "I can't afford that now, I'll do it in the fall" or what have you. Fall comes, "Its made it this far, we'll do it next month". From there it just keeps snowballing.
"Ive flown on those cables for 7 years, they get looked at every 125 hours, there fine." "Why do I need to do it?"
Pretty soon this applies to everything on the aircraft.
Ive seen it happen day in and day out.
This is one off the reasons that I, and many other mechanics, have gotten out of skydiving aircraft.

Quote

I wish Bill , or his rep, would post to this thread



Lawyers probably will not let him. "No comment till the hearing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I will be the first to scream about bad maintance...

BUT, (I have heard) Bill Dauce is "ON" almost every flight that takes off from his DZ , (building numbers), was he trying to kill himself by playing ruolette? (Sp?) a little hard to believe..

I wish Bill , or his rep, would post to this thread...surely there is MUCH more to the story!

I just remember the Perris crash, (I was working there when it happened) people blamed the DZ owner.........., HUH???? His own Daughter was on those planes daily....I doubt Ben would take a chance with her life!

We may be over reacting to this fine by the FAA....



First of all, the Perris crash was due to fuel contamination and pilot error when an engine failed on takeoff. I don’t recall any maintenance issues arising from the investigation. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Now, as also mentioned by a few earlier posters, the issue of Bill Dause flying on his aircraft all the time- If someone thinks that this means the aircraft are safe, they really need a reality check. Just because he is being stupid doesn’t mean they should be stupid. (The analogy about your Mom saying “If Billy jumped off a cliff would you?” is kind of lost on this group.);)


And I agree that it would be nice to hear from Bill or a DZ representative. But we all know that’s not going to happen.

If Bill was playing roulette then it was not just with his life but with every person’s life that went up on every one of those 2000+ loads. In my opinion, every time you get on one of his aircraft you are becoming a test pilot.

Over reacting to the FAA fine? I don’t think so. Just because nobody died and the aircraft was allegedly brought back to airworthy condition doesn’t make it OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The purpose of the “seat belt” or restraint system is not to keep you from moving. Your upper body is going to go with the flow in the event of a rapid deceleration. The restraint system restricts the distance you will move and amount of speed your body will develop. Without some sort of restraint your body becomes a meat missile. That also holds true of helmets, with or without cameras. They should either be secured on your head of attached to you harness.
You can dislike the seating arrangement and have different opinions on the types of restraint systems used but you will always be safer using them.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> Just because he is being stupid doesn’t mean they should be stupid.

I think the more pertinent issue is "just because he is cheap doesn't mean they should be stupid." It takes a lot of $10 jumps to make up for 30 years in a wheelchair (or worse.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I figure the seat belts are really there to keep the bodies with the plane and not be spread over God's half acre. I not really sure there are enough points for those things to be really safe.



...and I bet ya thought jumpsuit 'grippers' were for RW! :ph34r:










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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I figure the seat belts are really there to keep the bodies with the plane and not be spread over God's half acre. I not really sure there are enough points for those things to be really safe.



Makes for easier recovery operations.
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
Quote

The purpose of the “seat belt” or restraint system is not to keep you from moving. Your upper body is going to go with the flow in the event of a rapid deceleration. The restraint system restricts the distance you will move and amount of speed your body will develop. Without some sort of restraint your body becomes a meat missile. That also holds true of helmets, with or without cameras. They should either be secured on your head of attached to you harness.


I thought their purpose was to provide a gentler (longer time) deceleration than impacting a bulkhead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I figure the seat belts are really there to keep the bodies with the plane and not be spread over God's half acre. I not really sure there are enough points for those things to be really safe.

A two point system should be better than a one point system, but both are better than a no point system. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I figure the seat belts are really there to keep the bodies with the plane and not be spread over God's half acre. I not really sure there are enough points for those things to be really safe.

A two point system should be better than a one point system, but both are better than a no point system. ;)



Personally, for floor seating, I'd like to see two one-point seat belts for each jumper, one looping through one side of your harness and the other looping the other side. In a crash, you won't go flopping around every which way in case the plane cartwheels or flat-spins on the ground. DZOs aren't going to spring for the extra expense I don't think...
"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Personally, for floor seating, I'd like to see two one-point seat belts for each jumper, one looping through one side of your harness and the other looping the other side. In a crash, you won't go flopping around every which way in case the plane cartwheels or flat-spins on the ground. DZOs aren't going to spring for the extra expense I don't think...

:D:D That's actually a great idea, and very doable with planes that have the cargo tie-down tracks on the floor. I was just thinking of all the folks who have trouble finding just one seatbelt. Wait 'til they have to find two of 'em. :D

I'd still prefer to loop both around my hips, for better load distribution and strength. I heard the FAA's CAMI institute is going to take a look at how we strap in skydivers. There may be some rule making down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Personally, for floor seating, I'd like to see two one-point seat belts for
>each jumper, one looping through one side of your harness and the other
>looping the other side.

Won't retain people sitting on the floor very well - they'll mostly just go shooting out of the top of their harness. Those things aren't designed to keep you inside when loaded from the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

CAN NOT WAIT for my ass to jump 10 times for 100 bucks..



I hope the plane does not crash....



Me too. Of course what are the odds that a control cable will fail? Ask the people that were on the Twin Otter in San Diego a couple years back. Cool heads and a shit hot pilot are all that saved them from being a big grease spot, and that was on an airplane that was getting good maintenance.

What are the odds the wings come off? Ask the fire crew of a C-130 from a couple years back.

I'm still waiting to see someone actually defend Bill for putting lives in jeopardy to save a buck.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kinda worries me how some people are writing off the importance of keeping up with aircraft maintenance. I am not a DZO, pilot, A&P or part of the FAA...but I have been around this sport long enough to remember the years that we have lost about as many jumpers in airplane accidents as in skydiving accidents. To me, the general aviation side of skydiving is very important (from pilot skills/training, aircraft maintenance, to quality of fuel...). Keeping up with this stuff isn't like a recommended maintenance on your car. Not changing parts after their lifespan is not like the guy at the oil change place telling you that your power steering fluid should be changed every so many miles. This stuff is federal law and very serious. It is also very expensive and I can see how people might think they know better...or want to put it off just a little bit longer. Even though they might be "ok" with that, IMO it is not fair for something of that level of importance to be left to a DZO to decide. There is a reason that the manufacture and the FAA make that mandatory. Just because "they" (general "they" not pointing out Bill..) is willing to fly or ride in something that is out of maintenance specs doesn't mean it is fair, or ok for them to make that decision for the jumpers who fly in their planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

God I hate those seats.
Forced angle seating, unable to sufficiently lighten tandem straps, seat belts getting stuck behind the seat tubing, pain in the ass to stow the fold down seats in the rear....oh, I hate those seats.



No matter what the subject is, skydiving seems to really stress you out, and you don't seem to enjoy any of it, so why don't you just sell your gear and go bowling?

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

Quote

One thing people can do to at least alleviate the problem is not to leave them as loose as possible. At least that way you won't go quite as far before hitting the end of the seat belt.



I've also noticed something that goes along with that comment. It seems that in Otters when we're facing the rear on those foam straddle benches, we're always reaching behind us to get a seat belt. In other words, there's going to be a huge whiplash effect if we're ever actually in a crash, as we get snapped to the end of that seatbelt in the other direction. It seems like we ought to be reaching towards the rear of the plane to get a belt, so that they're already under tension if a crash occurs.



Not invalidating your argument regarding a crash scenario, but it's hard enough on otters with benches and two-point belts (where your seat is painfully obvious) to get people to actually sit all the way forward in the plane. I can't imagine the production it would be every time loading an otter with no benches and single-point belts if you gave people slack in their seatbelt to move aft.

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.

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