Private pilots flying jumpers

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

It makes the whole sport look like a bunch of loose cannons.

In Canada we are currently fighting that impression in the Federal Parliament. The stakes are rather high.

[billvon 2,396]

>Would you rather jump from a plane with a pilot who has over
>10,000 hours flying jumpers and a private license...(who may also have
>thousands of skydives as well)

>Or some green horn rookie with a commercial rating who has never flown a
>jump pane before?

Sort of a silly question.

Would you rather jump from a plane with an Airline Transport Pilot who has over 30,000 hours in the air, who was a military combat pilot, is an experienced skydiver and has worked as an airplane designer - and has had a few beers (and is used to flying after a few beers)

Or some green horn rookie with a commercial rating who has never flown a jump pane before?

I suspect you'd choose the former. That does NOT mean that drinking and flying is legal or a good idea.

[peckerhead 0]

Do you know the details of the first incident? From what I have gathered it sounds like a botched demo and one of the jumpers had a reserve out of date. The FAA decided that the demo was "for hire" so it needed a commercial pilot.

After that things resumed as normal with a "shared use" waiver.

Before people start talking out of thier ass please look into the facts.

Remember the incident a few years back in Oregon where the plane went in with no one on board? That was a private pilot at the controls and the FAA ruled it was perfectly legal because of the "shared use" waiver. The pilot made his first jump and the plane was destroyed.

Look it up!

Legal and prudent are not the same thing.

I do not believe Bob Rawlins broke any laws and until proven guilty in a court of law he has done no harm.

"Shared use" means nobody profits from the flight and yes it IS LEGAL!

I will not run and hide, I am going to stand up for Bob! This was not his fault and some of you should be ashamed of yourselves for running to the other side.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

"Shared use" means nobody profits from the flight and yes it IS LEGAL!

Then where did the $220.00 go that the tandem student paid?

Derek

[peckerhead 0]

It went into the gas tank, airframe, powerplant, equipment, light bulbs, refridgerator, etc.

It is really not that hard to figure out if you think about it and don't have an axe to grind.

If there was a go around you probably could show a loss.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

It went into the gas tank, airframe, powerplant, equipment, light bulbs, refridgerator, etc.

Then how do other DZ's make a profit charging the same rates?

Is the TI jumping for free?

When the DZ advertises to the general public and charges them for skydives, that is a commercial operation. There is no way I would believe that no one is profiting from charging tandems $220.00 a pop at that DZ.

Derek

Derek

[fasted3 0]

Quote

Pilots, could you please explain to me what the added value of a commercial rating over a private one is? What's the difference?

... about the only thing a commercial certificate says is that the pilot has 250 hours

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

It went into the gas tank, airframe, powerplant, equipment, light bulbs, refridgerator, etc.

Then how do other DZ's make a profit charging the same rates?

Is the TI jumping for free?

When the DZ advertises to the general public and charges them for skydives, that is a commercial operation. There is no way I would believe that no one is profiting from charging tandems $220.00 a pop at that DZ.

Derek

Derek

It makes no difference whether the venture shows a profit or not. It was a commercial transaction.

[DougH 270]

Quote

It went into the gas tank, airframe, powerplant, equipment, light bulbs, refridgerator, etc.

It is really not that hard to figure out if you think about it and don't have an axe to grind.

If there was a go around you probably could show a loss.

There was a financial transaction. There were gross reciepts.

The FAA doesn't care about his bottom line, only the IRS and his bank account care about his bottom line.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[tetra316 0]

Quote

Remember the incident a few years back in Oregon where the plane went in with no one on board? That was a private pilot at the controls and the FAA ruled it was perfectly legal because of the "shared use" waiver. The pilot made his first jump and the plane was destroyed.

Look it up!

reply]

There were no tandems on that plane. I believe therefore it was much easier to rule legal due to shared use. With a tandem on board I highly doubt you would get the same outcome.

• Quote

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

It went into the gas tank, airframe, powerplant, equipment, light bulbs, refridgerator, etc.

It is really not that hard to figure out if you think about it and don't have an axe to grind.

If there was a go around you probably could show a loss.

It is a commercial drop zone, flying skydivers and students for money. The pilot is required to have a commercial license. he knows that. He doesn't have one. What happened to all the skydivers at that DZ? What haoppened to self-regulating? This is a perfect example why self regulating is not working. You are a USPA RD and admit to having 1000 skydives from a plane with a private pilot at the controls. What example does that set to the other skydivers? What does that tell the FAA? What happened to your integrity?

Derek

[peckerhead 0]

I have made my decision Derek and it won't change.
I will stand by Bob and Duanesburg, if you want to take the other side then that is your business.

In my opinion you have no integrity, stay in your tunnel where you can be safe.

You have been pestering me all day long and quite frankly I have had enough. I get it, you don't jump anymore and you hate skydivers. You hate USPA. whatever....

You really need to get a life dude.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Who said he can't get one? More like won't, or doesn't need one.

Well, actually this guy did need one.

Is "said guy" the same as "this guy", or is "said guy" a hypothetical guy?

...

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

[Black-slon 0]

The thing is in safety. If it happens once and the pilot is sure of himself - that'll do. If it becames on regular basis - shit will surely happen