riggerpaul 1 #26 January 6, 2010 QuoteCessna Grand Caravan right now Are any of the aircraft that were recently grounded flying jumpers again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
untoldfox 0 #27 January 7, 2010 I heard Lodi is shut down right now.. is this true? plane crash caused all planes to be grounded? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kylepass 0 #28 January 7, 2010 they are running a caravan.This website has become tiresome... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #29 January 7, 2010 AFAIK, the FAA has grounded all aircraft operating at the Parachute Center (Lodi) owned by Bill Dause or his holding companies for maintenance and/or documentation issues. The Parachute Center reportedly is currently leasing a Caravan from a DZ in Utah, and seems to have a Twin Otter available sometimes from a DZ in Chicago.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kodra 0 #30 January 7, 2010 We were planing going to Lodi in march. Does anybody knows if the DZ will be runing all planes then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpwally 0 #31 January 7, 2010 How many planes you need flying ? You can only jump from one at atime.... Did you not read the several posts above you ? Caravan is running now and an Otter from Chicago as needed....It'll prolly be better and safer for everyone if you stay home.... smile, be nice, enjoy life FB # - 1083 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andym148 2 #32 January 7, 2010 Cool, Same as my home DZ! See you guys in Lodi on the last week in Feb! Blue skies.At long last the light at the end of the tunell isnt an on coming train!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #33 January 7, 2010 QuoteAFAIK, the FAA has grounded all aircraft operating at the Parachute Center (Lodi) owned by Bill Dause or his holding companies for maintenance and/or documentation issues. The Parachute Center reportedly is currently leasing a Caravan from a DZ in Utah, and seems to have a Twin Otter available sometimes from a DZ in Chicago. you can't stop Bill from operating, as much as the surrounding dz's would like that to happen, it will not untill the day he dies or throws in the towel!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #34 January 7, 2010 Nobody around here I know wants to stop Bill from operating, several of us think that if he's not going to play by the rules he's agreed to, he should give up his USPA membership.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #35 January 8, 2010 Quote he should give up his USPA membership. The Parachute Center doesn't have a group membership to give up (at least according to the USPA web site, which I have to assume is still accurate). Are you suggesting Bill give up his personal membership?"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #36 January 8, 2010 Precisely.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #37 January 8, 2010 QuotePrecisely. Okay, I'm obviously having a blonde moment here. What rules relating to the running of a dropzone did Bill agree to when he joined USPA as an individual member? Or what specific rules do you think he's not playing by now? Because when I look at the USPA membership application form I don't see where the applicant is agreeing to anything other than allowing his/her credit card to be charged."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ironmanjay 0 #38 January 8, 2010 Quote Because when I look at the USPA membership application form I don't see where the applicant is agreeing to anything other than allowing his/her credit card to be charged. +1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpwally 0 #39 January 8, 2010 Nice,,, +2 smile, be nice, enjoy life FB # - 1083 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VectorBoy 0 #40 January 8, 2010 Or what specific rules do you think he's not playing by now? Bill allows visiting jumpers to fly the atmonauti. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #41 January 8, 2010 Would you be suggesting the USPA members, and instructional rating holders are not bound by the organization's rules one of which is to comply with all FAR's? ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #42 January 8, 2010 Quit beating around the fucking bush! If you have an accusation to make then make it; be specific. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #43 January 8, 2010 Quote Would you be suggesting the USPA members, and instructional rating holders are not bound by the organization's rules one of which is to comply with all FAR's? Just asking for specificity because it's actually an interesting question that I'm trying to understand better. I realize my original response was a little tongue-in-cheek, but it also raises a question - if, in applying for membership I don't specifically agree to be bound by the rules of membership, am I bound by them? Perhaps I'm being a bit pedantic, but hell, I'm bored. The governance manual does contain the "constitution and bylaws" section that outlines disciplinary actions and reasons that the board might take disciplinary action against a member, which does include action against a member who "Willfully, flagrantly, or continuously violates the USPA Basic Safety Requirements." So I suppose that's grounds for initiating disciplinary action. But really, if what is causing the concern in this specific case is the aircraft and the operation thereof, is it more appropriate to let the feds do their thing first since they actually have the force of law/regulations behind them? Seems like that's a much bigger stick than the revocation of an individual membership that Bill might not even need anyway (I say might because while he doesn't need the membership to jump at his own dropzone, I don't know which instructional privileges he holds/exercises)."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #44 January 8, 2010 How about we start with repeated failure to comply with FAR's including but not limited to aircraft maintenance and operations.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #45 January 8, 2010 QuoteHow about we start with repeated failure to comply with FAR's including but not limited to aircraft maintenance and operations. That sounds like a corporate issue and nothing to do with Bill's personal membership (if accurate). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #46 January 8, 2010 What corporation?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #47 January 8, 2010 The one that owns the aircraft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #48 January 9, 2010 You meant he corporation that is a holding company for the aircraft and is wholey owned and operated by Bill Dause? Are you really trying to find excuses for someone who has failed to properly maintain aircraft used to carry people for hire?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcain 0 #49 January 9, 2010 Has the FAA cited conclusively that aircraft maintenance was the reason for grounding the fleet? I would like to see the report. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #50 January 9, 2010 Boo this man! Fie on you, stirrer of the pot! Fictional pot of phantoms and shadows, I say! Wormwood!So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites