0
normiss

King Air engine loss?

Recommended Posts

Quote

Whether one or both of the AFF-I's should have stayed with the students is debatable and I'm not qualified to say. However, if I was one of the two students that day, I would just as soon have my instructor jump to lighten the plane once I had made the decision to go with the plane.

Hence, I think the right decision was made. But again, I wasn't there and have limited experience, so don't flame me. I'm just giving an opinion as a student if I were in this situation.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. No, it is not debatable. One should have stayed or both students should have gone. This procedure was established probably before you were born and for good reasons. The safety and survivability of all involved.

2. Yes, you are not qualified to say stay or go for either the students or the instructors. You are being loyal to your DZ and instructors and loyalty is always commendable. But you are just parroting what you have heard others say.

3. What do you base “I think the right decision was made.”? Do you have any idea what the useful load of a King Air 90 is? At the time of the engine how much fuel was on board? Do you know what the published rate of climb is for a King Air 90? I am not trying to flame you but to show you that really have not opinion in this matter. You know what to opinion of other might be but you do not know why.

4. A King Air 90 has a Gross weight of 9650 lbs., an empty weight of 5600 lbs. leaving a useful load of 4050 lbs. The 9 souls and the pilot onboard would come to around 2100 lbs. leaving 1950 lbs. of useful load. Required fuel for the flight would come to just under 500 lbs. for a 1450 useful load. So the plane was not even close to being over weight even for a single engine. It published single engine climb rate is 500 fpm which is faster than the planed many of us learned to jump out of.

In conclusion, with this information, which the pilot should have had at his finger tips and the instructors should have at least a passing knowledge of; do you still think the right decision was made? We all make mistakes but when you take on a leadership role in any aviation related activity your mistakes can cost someone else their life.

Disclaimer: All of the above is my personal opinion. I am not an instructor but I am a pilot. I have also spent many hours in that aircraft from 200 mph at 500 ft. to 180 mph at 30,000 ft.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey Mr. Sparky!! just cause you know all this stuff doesn't mean you get to comment, don't start trying to confuse the issue with facts ;)

I especially like the, "there were 4 instructors on the plane, 2 tandem and 2 AFF" if the tandem I's weren't also AFF I's, I'd kindly ask them to STFU

but I wasn't there so anything i have to say doesn't matter :S

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" ... I especially like the, "there were 4 instructors on the plane, 2 tandem and 2 AFF" if the tandem I's weren't also AFF I's, I'd kindly ask them to STFU
..."

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

All instructors (regardless of ratings) are held (by Monday-morning quarterbacks ... er judge and jury) to the same standard (be the last man out alive).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Neither FAR part 90 nor 105 define a chain of command, nor give any authority to anyone except the PIC. The AFFI cannot overrule the PIC.



No argument or disagreement there because of BSR 2-1 E.8 (NW) makes it very clear but this also apples to the pilot cannot supervise students while simultaneously piloting the aircraft.

Most reputable skydiving school establishes a chain of command beginning with the pilot to the jumpmaster/spotter who supervises exit procedures for the fun jumpers. The instructor fallows the command from the pilot and the student fallows the command from their instructor, so, in this case of emergency exit, the responsibility rest on the instructor who makes the decision on whether the student exits or not once the pilot gives the command.
Memento Mori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the instructors’ evolved should write on the backboard 1000 times

“I will never deliberately leave my student unattended in an aircraft while in flight for any period of time until that student has earned their “A” license.”

I may have my ratings striped from me, but no pilot in the world will command me to exit without my student in an emergency. I am responsible for my student and I believe it goes with the rating.
Memento Mori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I may have my ratings striped from me, but no pilot in the world will command me to exit without my student in an emergency. I am responsible for my student and I believe it goes with the rating.



You must be some kind of genetic throw back to a time when “accepted responsibility” was taken seriously.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Neither FAR part 90 nor 105 define a chain of command, nor give any authority to anyone except the PIC. The AFFI cannot overrule the PIC.




You've brought this up before, but you're ignoring several factors.

First of all, the FARs as they regard to this issue were probably written before the existance of AFF or tandem, and were probably written without any consideration to SL students as well.

To the FAA, a parachutist is a parachutist, and if you board an aircraft with a single harness, dual parachute system for the purpose of sport parachuting, you're just the same as any other jumper regardless if it's your 1st or 101st jump.

As akydivers, we know that this is not ture, and we have students board an aircraft under the premise that they are under the direct supervision of an instructor, and that without that instructor they are not qualified or preparred to be there (for the most part).

As it applies to this incident, or a situation like this, the PIC has the ability to call for an exit, but I don't believe that includes the right to call for a restricted exit.

As it applies to fun jumpers, the PIC can certainly call for 'at least 4 or 5 jumpers out' if he feels that 800 or 1000lbs less will allow him to make a safe landing, but if 5 guys get out before me, you can bet that I'll be the 6th man anytime the pilot needs to make an emergency landing and is concerned about the weight. I'll respect the minimum number of jumpers to exit, and would be one of the five if need be, but I would never respect a maximum, and feel required to stay in an impaired aircraft.

As it applies to students, be it tandem or AFF, the PIC needs to understand that they are a package deal. They will board and exit the AC as a pair, in any situation. A traditional, two JM AFF dive may have one JM exit in an emergency, but if the student stays, at least one JM will stay.

You can site the FARs any day, but like I said, they are not current in terms of modern day skydiving, and modern day skydiving instruction. Furthermore, in this situtasion, the suggestion was not to dis-obey the PIC on an exit order, but to see the exit order through to completion, and for the JMs to do their jobs and take the students with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Both tandems exited the aircraft...with their students.
:P



Surely it is riskier for a tandem to exit at 5k than an AFF student? Also isn't it riskier for a tandem to have an off landing than a student?
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Both tandems exited the aircraft...with their students.
:P



Surely it is riskier for a tandem to exit at 5k than an AFF student? Also isn't it riskier for a tandem to have an off landing than a student?


Not really...? by definition a tandem will have a tandem instructor flying the canopy, who 'should' have the skills to safely land the canopy off the DZ, including scoping out the new LZ from the air and calculating the safest place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Furthermore, in this situtasion, the suggestion was not to dis-obey the PIC on an exit order, but to see the exit order through to completion, and for the JMs to do their jobs and take the students with them.



Or for one of the AFFI's to have stayed in the plane with the student.
FWIW, the area is entirely hayfields (and that's where they landed). The hay is cut/baled. Haybales could have constituted an obstacle. Baled hay is pretty obvious from the air, but when you're flying towards it they can seem to be coming up fast. not sure it's the best place for a student to land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Both tandems exited the aircraft...with their students.
:P



Surely it is riskier for a tandem to exit at 5k than an AFF student? Also isn't it riskier for a tandem to have an off landing than a student?


Where did it say skydiving was anything but risky?

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it called "following orders," "delegation of responsibility" and "chain of command."
The pilot is in command and makes all major decisions.
But, he has the option of delegating certain responsibilities to other crew members (eg. co-pilot). In this case, a skydiving instructor has the same responsibilities as a stewardess/cabin attendant to keep the passengers (skydiving students) out of the hair of the pilot, who is too busy flying the airplane.

The "chain of command" is very simple: the pilot decides and passes on his decision to the instructor, who passes the decision on to students.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No argument or disagreement there because of BSR 2-1 E.8 (NW) makes it very clear but this also apples to the pilot cannot supervise students while simultaneously piloting the aircraft.

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

This refers to the (out-dated) practice of a pilot flying a Cessna, while simultaneously dispatching static-line students. It is easy to do with good students, but a bad student can quickly over-whelm the pilot.
Thankfully, that practice fell out of fashion after a student drowned in Lake Winnipeg, circa 1980.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have no doubt that the choice made was made with a lot of thought and to the best judgement of those on board.

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


Really?



Quote


I have no doubt that the choice made was made with a lot of thought and to the best judgement of those on board. I also understand that if it was your choice you are going to stand behind that choice, as you should in my opinion. However, this would never have been my choice. I am not leaving my student behind and unatended



Please do not take a single comment out of context of the rest of my post.



Quote


Anyone want to bet that both of the AFF-Is in this case got their ratings from the new-style AFF certification course?


So did I, but I still have the training and responsibility to make the right choice in this situation. And although it does not sound that way by your response to my post, my opinion and yours seems to be identical in this situation.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Anyone want to bet that both of the AFF-Is in this case got their ratings from the new-style AFF certification course?

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

So did I, but I still have the training and responsibility to make the right choice in this situation. And although it does not sound that way by your response to my post, my opinion and yours seems to be identical in this situation.



Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that all of the instructors who are the product of the new style course are sub-par. I'm sure many of them would have earned a rating under the old style course as well.

What I am suggesting is that there is a portion of the instructors who recieved a rating under the new style course who have no business acting as an instructor. The two in this case are a good example. The guy who tied a banner to the rig of an unsuspecting newbie jumper is another.

All three of them are products of the new style certification course, and it's not a coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

All three of them are products of the new style certification course, and it's not a coincidence.



Although I know of at least one AFF-I from the old style certification course who should not be teaching our fine sport, and I am sure there are more, I still must agree with you on this point, 100%.


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