Observers on jumpships (was: Prop strike)

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Quote

Careful tossing blame so quickly. Unless you were a witness, I don't think you can say whose fault it was. There are a lot of other possbilities besides poor supervision

When I gear up an observer they get a "ride briefing" that far surpasses anything that is given to Tandem Students. I don't just put a rig on them and say have fun with a pat them on the back. I pull them away from family and friends, tell them what to expect, teach them how to arch and exit if need be, how to pull, how to land, what to do if landing in the ocean (hawaii dz), what to do if landing in trees, I REITERATE the importance of NOT walking into the prop more than once and if I am not able to babysit them I make sure that somebody is taking care of guiding them INTO the airplane and making sure the somebody is there waiting to guide them from the door of the airplane back to the packing deck. Not only that but when we get to the airplane I point out the prop and make sure that they see it and know not to walk anywhere near it, even if it is not spinning yet. They always laugh like it's a joke or something but at least I know they are aware.

Your very words tell me why we shouldn't take observers. When they laugh at your warning about the prop, it shows how little they know about their environment and the lack of seriousness they place about being near an operarting aircraft. The Hawaii reference is another red flag. And if you are operating a plane with an in-flight door, the FAA forbids all but those onboard for the purpose of making a skydive from being on the plane, pilot excepted, of course.

She was obviously unsupervised and there is absolutely NO excuse for this. Whuffos don't know any better! They should, it IS after all a fairly obvious hazard! But they don't.

How does someone who is truly and fully being supervised walk into the prop? They don't.

Yes, I understand that shit happens. It happened today and an 18 girl lost her arm and that sux! Until a witness proves that she was 100% fully supervised and had a death wish which made her pull away and run into the prop well... then I stand by my post.

You are right about one thing. Shit happens. And when it does, I hope you're happy with the 24 bucks or whatever you got for the ride.

I don't see anything wrong with observer rides but I feel they should be treated like a first time solo jumper because really that is what it is, just without the jump. I think that observer rides are extremely rewarding for some people and it is nice that they have an opportunity to witness skydiving first hand.

Not so. Solo first-time students spend time working around and on the aircraft, with actual practice AVOIDING the prop. They are required to answer verbal and written questions about prop avoidance, further drilling it in. Even then we don't trust them and supervise their movements near the bird.

Quote

This is just learn, forget, repeat

unfortunately that is true for almost all skydiving accidents.

Also not true. We (meaning most of us) have learned about AAD's, helmets, RSL's, and and an assortment of other things taught to us through the failure of others.

Nobody wanted an AAD until Tommy went it. After that they couln't keep the damn things in stock.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[cloudtramp 0]

Quote

Your very words tell me why we shouldn't take observers. When they laugh at your warning about the prop, it shows how little they know about their environment and the lack of seriousness they place about being near an operarting aircraft.

Tandem students laugh at the same prop comment. Yet they are there near the airplane UNDER DIRECT SUPERVISION just as ANY first timer should be whether they are a tandem student, S/L, AFF, Observer! First time AFF students are also FULLY SUPERVISED near the airplane even though they have been (hopefully) completely educated by the the time they get there.

Quote

The Hawaii reference is another red flag

YEA? HOW SO?

[cloudtramp 0]

Quote

the FAA forbids all but those onboard for the purpose of making a skydive from being on the plane,

where did you get that? Aerial photography with no door on an aircraft is something that takes place every day all over the US. I believe that the actual reg is if there is no door you need to be wearing a parachute.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

I believe that the actual reg is if there is no door you need to be wearing a parachute.

That's not true either (except when required by the jump door STC such as 182s). The legal issue with observers in many jump planes is the lack of a seat. Skydivers are allowed to sit on the floor. No (legal) issues with no rig in the right seat of an otter or the jumpseat of a CASA, for example.

Dave

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Quote

I believe that the actual reg is if there is no door you need to be wearing a parachute.

That's not true either (except when required by the jump door STC such as 182s). The legal issue with observers in many jump planes is the lack of a seat. Skydivers are allowed to sit on the floor. No (legal) issues with no rig in the right seat of an otter or the jumpseat of a CASA, for example.

Dave

Ah yes, that's it. My bad. I believe the in-flight door (not "no door") requirement has to do with wearing a rig.

So my observation stands even when my memory didn't. Had the FAR been followed, she wouldn't have been in the plane.

Just say no to observers.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[diverdriver 5]

Here you go Chuck:

Let me add to the discussion. FAR 91.107


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


Sec. 91.107

Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart B--Flight Rules General

Sec. 91.107

Use of safety belts, shoulder harnesses, and child restraint systems.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator--
(1) No pilot may take off a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board is briefed on how to fasten and
unfasten that person's safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness.
(2) No pilot may cause to be moved on the surface, take off, or land a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board has been notified to fasten his or her safety belt and, if installed, his or her shoulder harness.
(3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing. For seaplane and float equipped rotorcraft operations during movement on the surface, the person pushing off the seaplane or rotorcraft from the dock and the person mooring the seaplane or rotorcraft at the dock are excepted from the preceding seating and safety belt requirements. Notwithstanding the preceding requirements of this paragraph, a person may:
(i) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth, provided that the person being held has not reached his or her second birthday and does not occupy or use any restraining device;
(ii) Use the floor of the aircraft as a seat, provided that the person is on board for the purpose of engaging in sport parachuting


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



An observer is NOT engaging in skydiving. They are there to watch even if given an emergency rig. Operators are opening themselves up to FAR violations if they let an observer sit on the floor of a 182, 206. Something to think about.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[skyjumpenfool 2]

Absolutely, Chuck is correct!! Observers should never, under any circumstances, be allowed in or near jump planes during or near jump operations. And, skydivers should never be allowed to exit aircraft while in flight! For sure, nobody should ever be allowed to operate, on public highways, any vehicle with less than 4 wheels. ……….NOT!

Sarcasm aside, we need to be careful when we “ban” an activity because it may be dangerous. Instead, we should work together to develop a system/procedure that minimizes the dangers and allows participation to all. At my home DZ, observers are welcomed, instructed, and closely supervised. They’re considered “students” and dealt with as such. At the end of their ride, they become another “positive ambassador” of our sport. For years, telling the wonderful story of their “no shit, there I was” moment.

Instead of banning observation rides altogether, try putting a positive spin on it. An observation ride, to some, is as close as they’ll ever get to a sky dive. To others, it may be the stepping stone to a long skydiving career. IMHO

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[cloudtramp 0]

Well Said!

thank you.

I agree 100%

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Absolutely, Chuck is correct!! Observers should never, under any circumstances, be allowed in or near jump planes during or near jump operations. And, skydivers should never be allowed to exit aircraft while in flight! For sure, nobody should ever be allowed to operate, on public highways, any vehicle with less than 4 wheels. ……….NOT!

Sarcasm aside, we need to be careful when we “ban” an activity because it may be dangerous. Instead, we should work together to develop a system/procedure that minimizes the dangers and allows participation to all. At my home DZ, observers are welcomed, instructed, and closely supervised. They’re considered “students” and dealt with as such. At the end of their ride, they become another “positive ambassador” of our sport. For years, telling the wonderful story of their “no shit, there I was” moment.

Instead of banning observation rides altogether, try putting a positive spin on it. An observation ride, to some, is as close as they’ll ever get to a sky dive. To others, it may be the stepping stone to a long skydiving career. IMHO

I never suggested banning oberver rides. I believe in fewer regulations on the sport, not more. I suggested that giving observer rides is not worth the risk they create for the drop zone and the sport.

For the record, I believe the decision whether or not to do them should be the DZO's.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[ryan_turner 0]

Quote

For the record, I believe the decision whether or not to do them should be the DZO's.

That is an interesting stance to take. Observers on planes that do not have seats is clearly a FAR violation. You think it should be up to the DZO to decide if he should follow the FARs? Do you feel the same way about airplane maintenance issues?

Ryan

[pilotdave 0]

I'm not sure it's so cut and dry that observers are not engaging in sport parachuting. It's an opinion, unless the FAA has made that determination.

Dave

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

For the record, I believe the decision whether or not to do them should be the DZO's.

That is an interesting stance to take. Observers on planes that do not have seats is clearly a FAR violation. You think it should be up to the DZO to decide if he should follow the FARs? Do you feel the same way about airplane maintenance issues?

Ryan

I think that what is really up to the DZO is whether to treat the person as a student or not.

If they aren't a student, then they'll need a seat. This would also open the whole messy issue of rides for hire. But that's for another discussion.

As long as they are students, I don't think they'd be violating the FARs to be in the plane without a seat.

Some students just aren't ready to jump yet, that's all.

[billvon 2,434]

>Observers on planes that do not have seats is clearly a FAR violation.

Passengers that are unrelated to skydiving need to not sit on the floor.

However, often skydivers, students or potential students will ride on aircraft. I have ridden on aircraft in order to do some O2 saturation level testing. Was that "for the purpose of sport skydiving?" Probably - I was doing it for sport skydiving research.

Often tandem passengers will say "I don't think I can jump!" and the TM will say "OK, we'll just go up and see if you want to go." They sometimes end up landing with the plane - but again, you could make a strong argument that they are there for the purpose of sport skydiving.

Sometimes a potential student will be uncertain as to whether they want to jump at all, and will go up purely to see if they feel they can jump. Is that "for purposes of sport skydiving?" You can argue that either way.

In addition, the letter of the law says that they can't sit on the floor unless they are skydiving. Which means if a non-skydiving passenger is sitting on an Otter bench, or a King Air straddle bench, or even the King Air 'toilet' - they are within the letter of the law.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I'm not sure it's so cut and dry that observers are not engaging in sport parachuting. It's an opinion, unless the FAA has made that determination.

Despite the examples cited in Bill's post, I think that kind of parsing of words and stretching of logic as a means to circumvent a written rule is treading on thin ice. In the recent thread about giving altimeters to tandem students, Tom Buchanan said, "Far too many skydivers like to look for ways around a regulation or rule, rather than recognize the reason for the regulation or rule in the first place." I think that's a sensible approach to the issue.

So let's cut the coy shit already, people - an observer is there to observe, not to skydive, so 99% of the time he doesn't fit within the intent of the language "for the purpose of engaging in sport parachuting". If we have to engage in linguistic gymnastics and obscure hypotheticals to get around that, we've already lost the argument.

[billvon 2,434]

>If we have to engage in linguistic gymnastics and obscure
>hypotheticals to get around that, we've already lost the argument.

Well, we often have to do that anyway. Jumpers sitting on a King Air straddle-bench are all technically illegal. They are not sitting in approved seats, and they are not sitting on the floor, which are the only two legal options.

>Tom Buchanan said, "Far too many skydivers like to look for ways
>around a regulation or rule, rather than recognize the reason for the
>regulation or rule in the first place."

I agree. Unfortunately, one of the reasons they do that is that they often _have_ to do that. And when just sitting on the straddle bench is violating the FAR's, it's easy to think that some of the rules don't apply to us. Not because we're above the law or anything, but because we're such a fringe activity that laws written for 99% of pilots and passengers out there don't apply as written.

[Andy9o8 0]

Ah, but those straddle-benches, when you squint your eyes and think real hard and rub your belly, can arguably be deemed to be raised extensions of the floor. So it's cool.

See? Now you've got me doing it.

An observer on the floor busts the FAR - straddle-benches and lucky rabbits' feet notwithstanding.

[cloudtramp 0]

Just as Bill was saying, alot of jump planes that I have been in have had seats of some sort. My home DZ has a caravan and the observers always sit in the right seat with a pilot rig on. A bench with seatbelts would strike me by definition as a seat as well (your off the floor right?)

Quote

that kind of parsing of words and stretching of logic as a means to circumvent a written rule is treading on thin ice

why? That is exactly how law works: the law is open to any interpretation that stays within the general guidelines set forth by said law.
That is until a specific case goes to court and a judge/jury defines what the exact definition of a "seat" is through the outcome of the case then this (and only this) will set a precedent to follow in all future cases (unless the definition of SEAT is precisely defined in the original FAR)

and WHAT THE HELL IS THE DEAL WITH SKYDIVERS WANTING MORE RULES AND MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL????? The very nature of skydiving is a celebration of freedom! What would our "skydiving forefathers" (and mothers) have to say about this? Guaranteed they'd all be BASE Jumpers. sad...

[Andy9o8 0]

All very interesting. I stand by my post: an observer on the floor busts the FAR.

[billvon 2,434]

>An observer on the floor busts the FAR . . .

Right. So do skydivers in a King Air. To put it another way, that observer is just as legal as we are.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

>An observer on the floor busts the FAR . . .

Right. So do skydivers in a King Air. To put it another way, that observer is just as legal as we are.

Fine. And when some DZ or pilot gets written-up for ridin' an observer on the floor of a jump ship, he can just use the "but King airs use bench seats" defense.* Let's see how that flies.




*Sort of a modified CDIF, if you stop to think about it.

[cloudtramp 0]

berth [ burth ]


noun (plural berths)

Definition:

1. bed on ship or train: a bed, usually built-in, on a ship or a train

Quote

each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing.

I would say that a bench in a jump plane would be defined as a berth.

[billvon 2,434]

>And when some DZ or pilot gets written-up for ridin' an observer on the
>floor of a jump ship, he can just use the "but King airs use bench seats"
>defense.

You're missing the point here. The point is not that the observer would get written up but the rest of the skydivers would not be. EVERYONE on that King Air is violating the FAR's by using a "non approved" seat.

And to go with your angle:

When that happens, see if you can use your "but only the observer is a violation, because skydivers do that ALL THE TIME!" argument.

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Quote

For the record, I believe the decision whether or not to do them should be the DZO's.

That is an interesting stance to take. Observers on planes that do not have seats is clearly a FAR violation. You think it should be up to the DZO to decide if he should follow the FARs? Do you feel the same way about airplane maintenance issues?

Ryan

Slow down, Sparky.

I made the mistake of assuming people following this thread knew my stance when I made that post. If you look back, I'm the one that (in the original thread on "incidents") first mentioned that the incident appeared to violate FAR's.

Any opinion I issue is predicated on following FAR's and - if the DZ is USPA - BSR's. However, there are legal observer rides too, ya know.

When I say the decision should be the DZO's, I mean within existing laws.

Now drink.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[cloudtramp 0]

Quote

Now drink.

good idea!

happy friday people. Go skydiving now and enjoy your weekend!

out.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

That is until a specific case goes to court and a judge/jury defines what the exact definition of a "seat" is through the outcome of the case then this (and only this) will set a precedent to follow in all future cases (unless the definition of SEAT is precisely defined in the original FAR)
...
I would say that a bench in a jump plane would be defined as a berth.

The key word you're missing is "approved." That means FAA approved. The FAA has very specific rules for seats and berths. A temporary bench in a jump plane is not an approved seat or berth. The metal side facing benches in some otters on the other hand are approved seats.

Dave