King Air engine loss?

[Ketia0 0]

Not true. throughout my whole AFF progression i had only one instructor that jumped with me. He did the Video and everything! And we do the release dive on our 3rd jump!

"In this game you can't predict the future. You just have to play the odds. "-JohnMitchell

[ikon 0]

Oh ok, I thought aff progression was the same everywhere. So in that case, I guess this could have been the students' first jump. If the students themselves chose not to jump, is 1 instructor still supposed to stay with them? I mean, I'm sure he doesn't want to die in a plane crash because his students chose not to jump. Or is the procedure to help them get buckled in and secure and then he can get out.

[Ketia0 0]

I have no idea. but i would have thought it would be good for the students to bail. Awesome real life emergency procedure! Knowing my insturctor... He would have had me bail!

"In this game you can't predict the future. You just have to play the odds. "-JohnMitchell

[jumpwally 0]

It sure would be nice to have the staight story from beginning to end.........

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[azureriders 0]

Quote

Not true. throughout my whole AFF progression i had only one instructor that jumped with me. He did the Video and everything! And we do the release dive on our 3rd jump!

Quote

SIM-Section 2-1 BASIC SAFETY REQUIREMENTS -
E-b. Harness-hold program [NW]
(1) All students must jump with two USPA
AFF rating holders until demonstrating
the ability to reliably deploy in the bellyto-
earth orientation at the correct altitude
without assistance.

Some schools (and as I understand your home DZ does) use a Tandem progression where a number of working tandems are done where the student activates deployment of the main canopy before moving on to one AFF Instructor.

So, whether the DZ in question uses a Tandem Instructional program like you went through, or if they are using straight AFF, ikon was correct to 'assume' that this was not the students very first jump, even if prior jumps may have been tandem rides.

However, 1 jump, 7 jumps, or 17, I am not leaving MY student behind.

[Beerlight 0]

As a pilot, I want to safely get rid of as much weight as I can during an engine-out emergency. 2 AFFI's out the door probably reduced the weight by another 400 lbs. Maybe that's what the pilot was running thru his head when he gave the order. It's what I would've thunk.

[jvair 0]

Quote

As a pilot, I want to safely get rid of as much weight as I can during an engine-out emergency. 2 AFFI's out the door probably reduced the weight by another 400 lbs. Maybe that's what the pilot was running thru his head when he gave the order. It's what I would've thunk.

Thats the point, thanks for posting. We got out of the plane at about 5,000' 6 or so miles from the airport over unknown landing areas. The students were better off staying on the plane. They had (as far as I know) two tan. and one AFF jump. The pilot and all the other jumpers on board including three T.I-AFFI's agreed. The plane was not going to crash, why keep on the extra weight.

[jvair 0]

BTW it was a king air not a twin otter

[normiss 622]

I had requested a Mod change the title DAYS ago.
I was ignored.
like usual

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The plane was not going to crash, why keep on the extra weight.

At some point you have to balance the risks of the extra weight of one instructor staying behind to calm and control the students, against the increased danger of unsupervised students doing something stupid.

[jvair 0]

Quote

Quote

The plane was not going to crash, why keep on the extra weight.

At some point you have to balance the risks of the extra weight of one instructor staying behind to calm and control the students, against the increased danger of unsupervised students doing something stupid.

I agree, but in this case the students were calm and collected. They were given instructions, and they followed them exactly. Not every case deserves the same response. Everyone did the right thing in this case.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The plane was not going to crash, why keep on the extra weight.

At some point you have to balance the risks of the extra weight of one instructor staying behind to calm and control the students, against the increased danger of unsupervised students doing something stupid.

I agree, but in this case the students were calm and collected. They were given instructions, and they followed them exactly. Not every case deserves the same response. Everyone did the right thing in this case.

Results-based analysis, i.e., "They got away with it, so it must have been OK", is a weak means of analyzing a safety protocol. Just because the students stayed calm and collected this time doesn't mean it necessarily should have been presumed that they would have, from the time the last instructor jumped until engine-off on the runway.

[normiss 622]

Totally disagree.
The instructors should have taken the students out.

Why is the DZ being so quiet on this one? Are they that hard up for "instructors".

[Tolgak 0]

Though I've never flown a jumpship, as a pilot I wouldn't be too concerned with who exits the cabin after I gave a bailout order. Any bit of weight loss is appreciated, but I wouldn't want the deaths of AFF students on my conscious.

The order of priority on a plane for any pilot is as follows: My ass, your ass, people on the ground, the aircraft, the property on the ground. A pilot ordering all but students out is protecting "my ass" by avoiding the ramifications of said students dying on his order.

If I were a jump pilot, I would write an SOP on bailout procedures leaving it up to instructors to determine if students should jump or stay. Then, my only worry would be to say "get out" (if I'm high enough) and focus on setting up the plane for egress then for a survivable landing.

Dropzones are terrible places for inspiration. What does one think when one looks up for a sign only to see a bunch of people falling?

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

The instructors should have taken the students out.

Why risk an emergency bailout with students if a safe landing in the plane is highly probable? Complete engine failure (all engines) is a different story. Single engine failure in a healthy turbine though? Is that really more dangerous than an emergency bailout on the main and an almost guaranteed off landing?

Dave

[azureriders 0]

Quote

Complete engine failure (all engines) is a different story

yes, and after one engine fails, the other could also. I know the situation is rare but it can and has happened before.

jvair, 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, it is just not going to happen. I would also be very cautious of who I left my student with. If the pilot changes his command to everyone out, is the Instructor on board going to have my student bail on his main before taking his own student out????

We use a dedicated radio Instructor on the ground who radios all our students in. I still pack a radio on each and every AFF jump as a back up. We also have our students wear the radio all the way through to AFF program, even though they normally do not need it half that long. With these back ups in place, I honestly believe my choice in your situation would have been to take my student with me. If not, then it would have been to stay with them, but never to leave them alone.

[Beerlight 0]

Quote

As a pilot, I want to safely get rid of as much weight as I can during an engine-out emergency. 2 AFFI's out the door probably reduced the weight by another 400 lbs. Maybe that's what the pilot was running thru his head when he gave the order. It's what I would've thunk.

A while back, I gave the bailout order from a C182 after my engine lost power in the climb. An AFFI took his Level 4 student out the door plus 2 fun jumpers left (2 on reserves, 2 on their mains!).....by the time they left, if was at 1,000 feet AGL. (There call, not mine at that altitude) but I sure as hell appreciated dumping 800 lbs when I needed it the most. I made it back (under partial power) to the runway. Thanks Andy Smith!

[DSE 3]

Quote

If I were a jump pilot, I would write an SOP on bailout procedures leaving it up to instructors to determine if students should jump or stay. Then, my only worry would be to say "get out" (if I'm high enough) and focus on setting up the plane for egress then for a survivable landing.

There already is an SOP for this scenario; it's taught in the AFFI course to AFFI instructors. I think Billvon very nicely sums up pilot in charge options above.
Instructors have two choices.
A-take the student out the door, clear n' pull (main or reserve)
B-One instructor remains with student(s). Our DZO jokingly said "We determine which AFFI stays by who is closest to the door. The one furthest from the door stays." Jokingly or not, seems like an appropriate protocol.
The pilot shouldn't be responsible to know the students are properly belted in, helmets on, heads down, etc. He's got other things to be dealing with in an emergency no matter how smoothly things may appear.

[normiss 622]

Are these "incidents" looked into by the FAA?
The USPA?

Personally I think this is something serious and no better a time than now to learn from it, review it with the staff and DZO, and make it know how they should handle a similar situation should they find themselves in one again.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

The plane was not going to crash, why keep on the extra weight.

At some point you have to balance the risks of the extra weight of one instructor staying behind to calm and control the students, against the increased danger of unsupervised students doing something stupid.

Why would you expect instructors to be any calmer than students in an aircraft emergency?

...

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

[Beerlight 0]

Quote

Are these "incidents" looked into by the FAA?
The USPA?

Quote

In my case no. No reason. It wasn't a reportable aircraft problem and the USPA at the time (1987) never was a consideration.

Personally I think this is something serious and no better a time than now to learn from it, review it with the staff and DZO, and make it know how they should handle a similar situation should they find themselves in one again.

I agree with another poster, definitely have clear/concise instructions prior to boarding that aircraft.

I know after my incident I was more thorough on my preflight brief to the jumpers. Almost anal about it, but it worked for me.

I jumped a couple years ago at a huge DZ in Texas. I never heard any type of brief before we loaded.

Are their any current jump pilots on here that want to offer their views on the subject?

[DSE 3]

Quote

Why would you expect instructors to be any calmer than students in an aircraft emergency?

Because we're supposed to be trained, experienced, professionals that have been taught how to manage ourselves in an emergency situation?

[normiss 622]

John are you serious?
Are you no more prepared for an aircraft emergency in a Mooney than a fresh PPL grad?

Maybe you should trade the Mooney in for a Cirrus?

[davelepka 4]

Quote

after one engine fails, the other could also. I know the situation is rare but it can and has happened before.

Fuel exaustion or contamination would kill the second engine shortly after the first. It would be a real shame to leave your student behind and have them deal with a solo emergency bailout (from a lower altitude) or ditching with the plane.

They should have never left those students in the plane.

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? I have all sorts of doubts. How much thought and consideration do you think they gave the matter? 20 seconds? 30 seconds? What sort of open discussion do you envision they had?

The SOP to not leave your student was established under no diress. There were knowledgable people considering the issue while not under the pressure of an aircraft emergency. That decision was made with a lot of thought and to the best judgement of those involved.

There's a reason we drill EPs over and over. It eliminates the need to make tough choices in tough situations. Fall back on your training, and count on that to be the right choice.

These guys knew the SOP. They took a different route when push came to shove. What will their response be to an in-air emergency with an AFF student? Both track away to 'clear the area' for the student?

Quote

I still pack a radio on each and every AFF jump as a back up.

Where I learned, and then spent my first few years as a video guy, one of the JMs carried a handheld on every AFF jump. That JM dumped first, before myself or the other JM, and they jumped a bigger canopy, so they could stay up with the student. Most of the guys could do the entire talk down from under canopy, and could set the student down right next to where they landed.

That's the right way to do it. If something goes wrong, as in this case, you exit with your student, get on the handheld, and lead them down to safe LZ.

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

[normiss 622]

booyah.