0
tombuch

Skydiving Airplanes and Pilots Operating Away From The DZ

Recommended Posts

As we all know by now there was a crash of a skydiving airplane yesterday. The flight was apparently charted to travel between Washington, and Idaho, a distance of well over 500 miles, for the purpose of transporting skydivers to a demo location. At this point it is unclear if the flight was operated under part 91, or was otherwise operated as for hire under parts 121 or 135. Ferry flights with skydivers aboard are not uncommon in our industry, so we should all understand what is involved in these operations, and what we should expect from the DZ owners and operators.

Flights operating under part 91 are limited to general aviation where no “hold out” to the public is involved. That is, the operator does not offer services to the general public, but instead limits services to a very small group of clients. As an example, a private company with a large corporate jet can choose to operate under part 91, but can not make that jet available for charter use. A charter aircraft must be operated under different rules. Conventional skydiving is clearly a “hold out” operation, but part 119.1(e)(6) allows us to operate under part 91 if the flight is conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of the airport of take off. It is possible for a skydiving ferry flight to exceed the 25 mile limit with FAA authorization, and remain legal under part 91, but it is rare. Likewise, it is possible for a skydiving flight to operate under parts 121 or 135, but few owners are willing to do this. One notable exception, I believe, is the jet at Perris Valley.

When a flight operates under parts 121 or 135 there are all sorts of additional regulations that apply, including certification of pilots, inspections of aircraft, required instruments, drug testing, crew limitations, management overhead requirements, etc. It is an expensive proposition, but operating under these higher regulations assures the passengers a greater level of safety and lower level of risk.

Skydivers and DZ operators should understand these regulations so that we remain in compliance. It is especially important to recognize that the FAA has given our industry special leeway to operate with minimal regulations, as long as we are engaged in skydiving, and not transportation. The FAA views movement to a distant skydiving location as transportation, and not skydiving. If we are engaged in transportations services, the FAA requires that our aircraft and pilots meet the same requirements as other charter operators. Pilots should think carefully about these regulations before beginning a transportation flight, and jumpers should understand the regulations before participating in a long distance flight.

As noted in the first paragraph, I don’t know how these regulations relate to the accident aircraft. This post is not directed at that flight, but rather is designed to begin a dialog on what we as jumpers can and can’t do, and should or should not expect from the drop zone and aircraft owners.
Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom,

I'm not a pilot, DZO, or airplane owner so I've never become familiar in detail with these regulations.

Demos we do out of our 182 DZ are routinely more than 25 miles from the DZ. Flights originate and end at the DZ. Sometimes stops occur to either pick up jumpers or stage at another airport. A variety of relationships exist between jumpers and DZ or airplane. (Ownership, 1099 contractor, no relationship other than paying tach time, no
relationship, typical freebie party demo.) Also at times a landing site more than 25 miles from the dz is used. Not as a "demo" as skydivers refer to it but as a fun activity (beach jumps).

Ignoring jumper qualifications for the demo, notams and authorizations please talk specifically and simply about the aircraft operation regulations for the local DZ 182, or a privately owned (not DZ owner) 182 flying local demos for tach time. Both within 25 miles and outside 25 miles.

I don't think the owners have probably recognized this issue.

Thanks,
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As we all know by now there was a crash of a skydiving airplane yesterday. The flight was apparently charted to travel between Washington, and Idaho, a distance of well over 500 miles, for the purpose of transporting skydivers to a demo location.



It was not a Demo but a Boogie at Star Idaho over the weekend. The Star dropzone had contracted the plane owned by Kapowsin Airsports and the flight was returning from the Boogie. The skydivers on board, as I understand it, were hitching a ride to and from. I dont know the details of this ride over but I have made that trip in the past, riding the airplane over and back so it was not uncommon to have people catching the plane.

Scott C.
"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

As we all know by now there was a crash of a skydiving airplane yesterday. The flight was apparently charted to travel between Washington, and Idaho, a distance of well over 500 miles, for the purpose of transporting skydivers to a demo location.



It was not a Demo but a Boogie at Star Idaho over the weekend. The Star dropzone had contracted the plane owned by Kapowsin Airsports and the flight was returning from the Boogie. The skydivers on board, as I understand it, were hitching a ride to and from. I dont know the details of this ride over but I have made that trip in the past, riding the airplane over and back so it was not uncommon to have people catching the plane.

Scott C.



Thanks for the correction. That makes it sound far more like a "hold out" in which the operator is willing to take all comers within a group, and it sounds like a recurring operation. It might still be legal...I'm not a lawyer...but I would think an operating certificate or waiver authorization would be required to exceed the 25 mile limit. Plus, it sounds like a ferry flight rather than a skydiving flight. Again, I'm not trying to build a case on this incident, but rather hope to get folks thinking about the kind of flying we do, and when/why it fits under 91 or 135.

I've done some digging and have attached a couple of columns from AOPA, and an FAA Advisory Circular on the topic. Some of it deals with private vs. commercial certificates, but it all relates to what the FAA calls a hold out or common carriage.
Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott --

The "problem" is that it's a grey area when it comes to certain issues.

If the skydivers truly were "hitching a ride to and from" there would actually be no issue here at all, but I think we all know that's not how it usually works. Generally speaking DZOs charge the skydivers at least a small amount of money for the ride and this causes certain legal issues regarding a concept known as "shared costs". Under Part 91 it's not a commercial flight and people on board aren't paying for the flight but rather sharing the costs of it. This is rather technical, but essentially everyone on board, INCLUDING THE PILOT, pays approximately an equal share of what it costs to operate that flight. Again, it's NOT a commercial flight because it would not have been held out to the public as being such. There would have been no advertisement, no poster, nothing on a web site . . . nothing whatsoever that would indicate that anyone could simply pay a fee and hop onboard for the flight.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One big issue is that the FAR's allow operation without seats for the purpose of skydiving - but if the purpose of the flight is NOT skydiving, then you need approved seats.

---------------------------
SEC. 91.107 USE OF SAFETY BELTS, SHOULDER
HARNESSES, AND CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS

(3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on
board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft . . .
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.

Notwithstanding the preceding requirements of this
paragraph, a person may:

(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;
----------------------------

Most skydiving aircraft do not reinstall the seats for ferry flights; indeed, many skydiving aircraft don't even have the seats available for installation any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We do this regularly for demo's, or to ferry staff to another location where they will be jumping. But in these instances the jumpers are either being paid to jump or riding for free, making it private carriage- no different than company employees riding the company jet.

Except, unless the seats are installed, everyone has to at least have the "intention" of jumping at the destination.

Quote

When a flight operates under parts 121 or 135 there are all sorts of additional regulations that apply, including certification of pilots, inspections of aircraft, required instruments, drug testing, crew limitations, management overhead requirements, etc. It is an expensive proposition, but operating under these higher regulations assures the passengers a greater level of safety and lower level of risk.



I strongly disagree. In fact there is data to suggest that certain 135 ops are more dangerous than their 91 counterparts. An operator that is saddled with burdensome, unnecessary, overhead is more likely to bend the rules where they can. Not saying all 135's are like that, its just that when times are tough, margins are slim, you've got astronomical insurance premiums premiums to pay for, parts costs are tripled or more, all your key senior people are too busy with paperwork to even look at the flight line, thats when its likely that airplanes will be overloaded, marginal weather pushed, maintenance deferred........

But don't confuse the FAA with logic. The recent NPRM regarding scenic flights is a good example. Their data pool suggests that the 135 operators are crashing at a rate of 10 to 1 compared to the 91 operators, usually after violating operating rules. The FAA solution: force 91 operators into 135 rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom I am glad you started this thread. This has been on my mind all day since the thread in the incidents forum was closed. Let me start by saying that I know nothing about either the pilot or the aircraft involved in the recent accident or anything about the DZ or how the aircraft was operated or maintained. What I am about to say is posted in the most general of terms and is in no way pointed at the people involved in this accident.

I was a bit upset that the thread in the incidents forum was locked because althought it was not a skydiving accident, I believe that there is alot to be learned by jumpers from the accident at hand. Some of the things that come to mind are,

-Is there a flight plan for the flight I am getting ready to board?
An FAA flight plan on file would tell someone where you are leaving from,when you should arrive, your route, how many people on board, fuel on board, and if it were not closed at the end of the flight it assures that someone will be looking for you.

-How experienced is the pilot in the inroute enviroment?
Although your DZs pilot might be the bomb at putting you on the airport, he might not be as experience at getting you from point A to point B.What rating does he hold? Does he have any experience flying in poor weather? Is the plane certified to fly in poor weather?

-How safe is the route?
Is it a mountainous area with no place to land or open fields where an emergency landing could be done?

-Do I have survival equipment that will sustain me in the event of a crash?
Do I have cloths that will keep me warm? Water? Food?

-Do I know how to operate any emergency equipment on board?
What is an ELT? Where is it? How do I turn it on if it is not on after the crash?

-Is anyone expecting us at our arrival point?

-How is the weather along our route?
Is it storming? Snowing?Ice?
Is the piolt hell bent on getting home tonight no matter what? GetHomeItis has gotten more then a few pilots killed.

Most of us are use to flying on commercial flights where most of these questions don't need to be asked. Flying on a private plane tends to change alot when it comes to aviation and getting somewhere safely.

Before anyone goes off on how I could ask questions like this at a time like this, these questions have been asked a thousand times over, everytime a plane goes down. The FAA has seen it all I would guess and I'm sure the media has also.

Again I post this not to bring light to anything involved in this recent accident but to get people to think before they board that next plane. What you learn from this could be the knowledge that saves your life sometime down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

One big issue is that the FAR's allow operation without seats for the purpose of skydiving - but if the purpose of the flight is NOT skydiving, then you need approved seats.

Most skydiving aircraft do not reinstall the seats for ferry flights; indeed, many skydiving aircraft don't even have the seats available for installation any longer.




*confused*

... but with respect to the Washington crash over the weekend... I thought I read that the seats & seat belts were in the aircraft when the incident took place? I'm not sure if this is accurate or if I mis-read something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

. . . we have got to stop crashing jump planes. How we do that I'm not sure...[:/]



Sadly, there is simply no way to stop aircraft accidents from ever happening. It's the nature of flight. Anyone in the aviation business has to come to grips with that as a fact. That's not to say we can't try to minimize them, but you have to resign yourself to knowing that they are a possibility at all times. Just like in skydiving, you can do everything right and still die.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

One big issue is that the FAR's allow operation without seats for the purpose of skydiving - but if the purpose of the flight is NOT skydiving, then you need approved seats.

Most skydiving aircraft do not reinstall the seats for ferry flights; indeed, many skydiving aircraft don't even have the seats available for installation any longer.




*confused*

... but with respect to the Washington crash over the weekend... I thought I read that the seats & seat belts were in the aircraft when the incident took place? I'm not sure if this is accurate or if I mis-read something?



That is what has been reported in the news media (quoting the owner of the plane).
"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Chris's points here. This is a great learning opportunity for jumpers. Jumpers should educate themselves on the qualifications of the aircraft and pilot.

As far as I always understood the regs, as long as you are not being compensated for the flight, you can carry passengers wherever you want under Part 91. Sharing expenses is even allowed as long as the a/c owner pays his share as well.

http://www.skydiveatlanta.com
http://www.musiccityskydiving.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

. . . we have got to stop crashing jump planes. How we do that I'm not sure...[:/]



Sadly, there is simply no way to stop aircraft accidents from ever happening. It's the nature of flight. Anyone in the aviation business has to come to grips with that as a fact. That's not to say we can't try to minimize them, but you have to resign yourself to knowing that they are a possibility at all times. Just like in skydiving, you can do everything right and still die.



But Quade, we crash them at a rate much higher than general aviation. You've seen my posts about this. If people throw up their hands and say "oh well, shit happens, planes just crash so accept it" then nothing will change and I know that's not what you want.

Gear manufacturers study fatalities and change how they make gear to make it safer. Why is this industry not studying accidents and trying to make it better as a whole. Everyone is staring into the sky like outfielders in baseball and the ball is hitting the ground inbetween them all the time. Accident after preventable jump plane accident.
Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

. . . we have got to stop crashing jump planes. How we do that I'm not sure...[:/]



Sadly, there is simply no way to stop aircraft accidents from ever happening. It's the nature of flight. Anyone in the aviation business has to come to grips with that as a fact. That's not to say we can't try to minimize them, but you have to resign yourself to knowing that they are a possibility at all times. Just like in skydiving, you can do everything right and still die.



But Quade, we crash them at a rate much higher than general aviation. You've seen my posts about this. If people throw up their hands and say "oh well, shit happens, planes just crash so accept it" then nothing will change and I know that's not what you want.

Gear manufacturers study fatalities and change how they make gear to make it safer. Why is this industry not studying accidents and trying to make it better as a whole. Everyone is staring into the sky like outfielders in baseball and the ball is hitting the ground inbetween them all the time. Accident after preventable jump plane accident.


Does the position that aircraft used for skydiving operations (182, Caravan, Otter, et al) endure a harder existence than similar aircraft not used for skydiving hold water?

I don't know, and I'm asking. It would seem to me that jump operations would cause more wear and tear on equipment, even on planes designed to run for decades...even the work horse STOL type aircraft (like Caravans, Otters, etc).
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you look at the accident reports for jump planes it's usually NOT the plane that breaks. It's how it was run by the pilot/operator. Lots of running out of gas. Lots of no carb heat usage. Then there is the mishandled engine failure on twin engine aircraft.

You can look at the list and see for yourself here: http://www.diverdriver.com/Accidents/accidents.htm

Contaminated gas, trim set improperly for takeoff, flight into inclement whether or conditions beyond the pilot's training.... Not many where the plane broke without help from the pilot.
Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But Quade, we crash them at a rate much higher than general aviation. You've seen my posts about this. If people throw up their hands and say "oh well, shit happens, planes just crash so accept it" then nothing will change and I know that's not what you want.



I understand your position on this and I think you also know I'm not advocating any sort of "oh well, shit happens" attitude.

What I'm saying is that we can do -everything- we can to prevent accidents and sometimes there is still nothing that could have prevented some accidents. It's a lot like what Earnest Gann wrote about in "Fate is the Hunter". We're all in the sky, sometimes gravity wins and as any sort of aviator we all have to come to grips with that whether we're a student pilot, skydiver or an astronaut.

Let's wait until the final report comes out before assuming that the aircraft operator or some systemic issue solely related to skydiving was at fault here.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Does the position that aircraft used for skydiving operations (182, Caravan, Otter, et al) endure a harder existence than similar aircraft not used for skydiving hold water?

I don't know, and I'm asking. It would seem to me that jump operations would cause more wear and tear on equipment, even on planes designed to run for decades...even the work horse STOL type aircraft (like Caravans, Otters, etc).



Any aircraft part that is affected by the number of cycles (i.e. takeoffs and landings) will have maintenance intervals dictated by number of cycles as well as numbers of hours flown. Usually in the form of "whichever limit is reached first". Just like some parts that deteriorate just by aging (such as rubber tubing and such) have to be replaced at fixed intervals, regardless of whether the plane has actually flown at all. So if maintenance is performed by the book, an aircraft that has a higher cycle rate, such as jump planes or planes that are used to tow gliders, will be just as safe as another aircraft of the same type that habitually only ferries people coast to coast.
The only difference will be that in the former case the cost per hour of flight will be higher.
Hope you get my drift.

Edited to add: what I mean is they will be just as safe from a structural or systemic failure standpoint. Of course any increased risk due to the type of operation, such as the risk of a tail strike for a jump plane or the risk of the glider "going high" and putting the tow plane in an unrecoverable dive, will not be affected by maintenance and will have to be addressed separately, f.e. through training or otherwise.

Cheers,

Vale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

One big issue is that the FAR's allow operation without seats for the purpose of skydiving - but if the purpose of the flight is NOT skydiving, then you need approved seats.



Let's also consider 91.223 which requires terrain awareness and warning systems for turbine powered aircraft with six or more passenger seats. One of the exceptions is for "Parachuting operations when conducted entirely within a 50 nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight operations began." http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY%5CRGFAR.NSF/0/0030211FA04B4359862568C80061AE90?OpenDocument

So when we are making skydives we don't need terrain warning systems, but it is required for ferry flights and passenger transportation.
Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

> but with respect to the Washington crash over the weekend...

My post was NOT intended to imply anything about the WA crash either way. It was a statement on ferry flights in general.




Didn't mean to say you did, Bill.

Sorry, but... et all...

I've been mulling this over in my head the last day or so after reading Tom's original and then the info he followed up with in a post later (up thread).

Outside of skydiving, I've been aware of it being "okay" for folks who own a priviate aircraft (operating under Part 91) to "share the cost" of a trip in their airplane with others... for example, I own a C172 and hold a Private Pilot's License. A couple of buddies and I decide it would be fun to fly from Inyokern, CA to Tahoe for the weekend. We jump in my plane Friday, fly up to Tahoe, come back Sunday, split the cost equally for the fuel and tie-down fees and, the way I understand things, we're "okay". Someone more versed in this, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Now with respect toskydiving and specifically with respect to the Washington crash... I've read through Tom's OP a couple of times and also through the attachments he later posted and am trying to puzzle out for myself whether or not the folks involved are going to get themselves in a crack or not here with the FAA with there having been passengers onboard? Maybe we don't want to discuss it here??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Outside of skydiving, I've been aware of it being "okay" for folks who own a priviate aircraft (operating under Part 91) to "share the cost" of a trip in their airplane with others... for example, I own a C172 and hold a Private Pilot's License. A couple of buddies and I decide it would be fun to fly from Inyokern, CA to Tahoe for the weekend. We jump in my plane Friday, fly up to Tahoe, come back Sunday, split the cost equally for the fuel and tie-down fees and, the way I understand things, we're "okay". Someone more versed in this, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Now with respect toskydiving and specifically with respect to the Washington crash... I've read through Tom's OP a couple of times and also through the attachments he later posted and am trying to puzzle out for myself whether or not the folks involved are going to get themselves in a crack or not here with the FAA with there having been passengers onboard? Maybe we don't want to discuss it here??



You are correct with regard to private pilot operations, with the exception that the plane can not be flown for compensation or hire, nor may you serve as pilot for compensation or hire. Nor may you offer to take your friends on that trip if you were not planning to go yourself, even if they split the cost. That is well established by administrative interpretation. The objectives of the pilot and passengers must be the same. So, yeah, it does sound like you have a good understanding of the private pilot world, and are fine doing what you are doing.

The Commercial word is a very different and complicated environment. Essentially, a commercial pilot can fly a 'share the expense flight' for his friends too, but there are limits to that privilege. I, as a commercial pilot, can not offer to fly a random person to another location and charge for the service. I can, like a private pilot, split the cost, but only if our objectives are the same. I can not let a group of people split the cost of a flight to a given location unless I also share in the expenses, and was planning to go there anyway.

There are two general exceptions. First, if the number of clients I serve is very small and is clearly not a hold out to the public. Second is when a flight is conducted by a "commercial operator." A commercial operator is essentially a charter operation that makes his services available to all comers, or a significant group of comers. Skydiving would be considered a "hold out" and require an operating certificate but for 119.3. What we are talking about here is when does a flight need to be conducted by an operator, and when is it sufficient for a commercial pilot to handle the flight. My answer is that if there is a hold out, that is, the group of potential passengers is more than a few, there must be an operating certificate. I've been discussing this with AOPA and they agree with that assessment.

Does that mean the guys in Washington are screwed? I don't know. I don't know the specifics of how the flight was chartered, how the passengers were selected, or what approvals might have been obtained. I do know that all jump pilots should be extra well versed in the craziness of commercial operations because the FAA and NTSB have said over and over again that ignorance of the regulations or how they are applied is not an excuse.

Should we be discussing it here? Sure, as long as we are working to self educate and not assess blame in a specific crash. You can be sure the FAA and NTSB will look at the specific type of operation that was being conducted in Idaho/Washington (part 91 or 135), and what regulations should have applied. Thats a standard part of any investigation and they don't need us to open it up.

If you want a better read on the topic you would be best to chat with a current instructor who is fully versed in part 61, 91, 119, and 135. It's a crazy and very limiting law.
Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Now with respect toskydiving and specifically with respect to the Washington crash... I've read through Tom's OP a couple of times and also through the attachments he later posted and am trying to puzzle out for myself whether or not the folks involved are going to get themselves in a crack or not here with the FAA with there having been passengers onboard? Maybe we don't want to discuss it here??



I would say that it's perfectly fine to discuss that part here because there is no proof of how the flight was operated and that virtually everyone involved that could possibly get into trouble or the FAA already knows the regulations.

It's a subject in training and a question on the Private Pilot written test and is dealt with in MUCH greater detail during training and testing for a Commercial Pilot Certificate. Pilots certainly ought to know that part of the regulations, the aircraft operators (owners) ought to and the FAA certainly knows about it. It's not like it's a trick question and was the first thing that popped into my mind when Tom first posted this general topic. I know I'm just not that clever to be the only one this has occured to.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

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