Aircraft Safety

[tombuch 0]

So it’s happened again. A Cessna 182 crashed shortly after take-off, killing four jumpers and the pilot. I don’t know what caused this specific accident, but I assume more details will be reported in the Incident Forum as they become available.

However, anytime there is an aircraft accident it’s always worth reviewing the risks of aircraft operation, and what we as skydiving customers can do to improve the safety of our local fleet.

The most important thing we can do is to push our operators and drop zone owners (DZO) to demand the highest level of pilot training possible. Some operators do, and some do not.

In addition to conventional FAA mandated biannual training and certifications, a jump pilot should have very current and specific training simulating take-off and departure stalls, and loss of power with a full load of jumpers. Training should include a simulated loss of power at take-off, with a 180 degree turn to mimic a return to the airport with a full load. Pilots are generally surprised to see how much altitude and airspeed is lost in this maneuver, especially at maximum gross weight. There should also be significant training at minimum controllable airspeed (MCA) simulating a full load, practicing rudder and aileron turns to simulate the movement of the aircraft on jumprun. Ideally this training should take place in a full motion simulator, but that’s a challenge (although not impossible) with small Cessna type aircraft. These same maneuvers can also be practiced at altitude with an instructor aboard. Whether a simulator or real airplane is used, the training should be designed to mimic a full load of skydivers. With a sim, that’s pretty easy. With a real airplane it may mean loading the airplane with appropriate weighted and secured cargo. A good instructor should know how to structure a course to enhance the desired skills without unnecessary risk to the pilot or aircraft.

Every drop zone should also have calculated a weight and balance for each of their aircraft using actual seating configurations, and should know what the gross weight limits are. Cessna 182’s used for skydiving are often loaded near, at, or beyond their limits in terms of both CG and gross weight. DZO’s and every jumper should know where the limits are, and should have a very well established program to remain within design parameters.

Pilots should also be expected to calculate the amount of runway needed to take-off and climb-out with a full load at all temperatures used for jump operations, and should have calculated the effect of a head wind, tail wind, and cross wind on take-off performance.

It’s well worth asking each of the pilots at your DZ when they completed their most recent training program, and what was included. If your DZ uses turbine aircraft, you should expect full motion simulator time. If your DZ uses smaller piston aircraft like the Cessna 182/206, you should expect, at a minimum, annual flight training that simulates jump operations and loads. It is also reasonable to ask your pilot to show you an actual weight and balance calculation for a typical (and maximum) load of jumpers, and a plot of aircraft take-off performance customized for your runway using maximum temperature/weight conditions. This stuff should already be available, and it shouldn’t be a big deal for a qualified pilot to show and explain what the charts and graphs mean.

Many Drop zone operators are reputable, and support a great crew of pilots, and terrific aircraft. Some place less emphasis on aircraft/pilot safety. As jumpers and customers we have a right, and a responsibility, to lobby for the best training and maintenance programs, and to take our business elsewhere if the DZ is cutting corners.

If you would like a bit more discussion about aircraft operations, check out Article 14 “Piston or Turbine Aircraft” that I added to The Ranch S&TA section in 2003. It is available at http://theblueskyranch.com/STA.php.

With all that said…I now command you to go to your drop zone and ask questions. Take a bit of time to learn about the airplanes and pilots used at your DZ.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[bluesidedown 0]

Quote

The most important thing we can do is to push our operators and drop zone owners (DZO) to demand the highest level of pilot training possible. Some operators do, and some do not.

While sending Caravan and Twin Otter pilots to Flightsafety (provided they are IFR rated etc) may help on turbine DZ's, you generally do not hear about turbine accidents so frequently... there's a reason for that.

At the Cessna DZ's, the critical training and procedures specific to jump flying should be absolutely solidified during the checkout. Things such as abort points, suitable forced landing fields, and stall avoidance would all generally be appicable there. Other things, such as a grasp on how a fully loaded airplane handles, effects of density altitude on flight characteristics, and general stall awareness(a grasp on how to stall, as opposed to how not to stall) are things learned through training and experience... in most cases, either in flight school, or when a pilot makes a mistake and scares himself to the point that some insight is gained- similar to having to seriously dig out of a hook turn after you've flown 200 sucessful ones. The latter are things that a DZO or CP simply cannot teach... they have to be experienced. The former is a flight instructor's responsibility- who, keep in mind, may be a 300 hour pilot themself. Then the issue comes that at Cessna DZ's, the planes are flown by low time pilots (low time can be thought of as less than 1000 hours, as a general basis), and these low time pilots have yet to experience a lot of the scares available in flying. Most notably, when the engine becomes silent, or when the plane goes down when you pull up. Hence, the explination behind insurance minimums.

After all of this, what can a DZ reasonably do to ensure safety? Easiest may be to increase the pilot's paycheque... attract higher time, experienced pilots who have seen a share of mistakes, and know which end is up. This may actually be the reason that we see lower accident rates in turbine powered aircraft. Higher time pilots make fewer mistakes. But where does that leave the low time guys? Good question...

Preventative training should succeed provided it is structured in a helpful manner, and is refreshed on a regular basis. In this case... helpful may have meant an SOP that allows no turns beyond 30 degrees of present heading below 500 feet in the event of an engine failure. Below 500 feet, just point her nose to the ground and at the path of least resisitance. An airplane can be replaced and your odds of surviving are better putting it into trees than spinning in. CP's or DZO's should not be pushing for the 180 back to the field after an engine failure on takeoff unless it is painfully obvious that you'll make it back in. It's just asking for something like today's to happen. It's happened hundred of times in the past, and will happen just the same in the future. Putting it into perspective, the 180 back to the field is similar to hooking it, getting into the corner, and then using superior skill to dig out at the right time to boost your swoop. It's clearly possible, but unless you get it exactly right everytime (experience) or have a few extra horseshoes up you ass, it's a risk not worth taking.

Quote

Training should include a simulated loss of power at take-off, with a 180 degree turn to mimic a return to the airport with a full load. Pilots are generally surprised to see how much altitude and airspeed is lost in this maneuver, especially at maximum gross weight.

I do hope that this is in the context of showing them how bad of an idea trying to coax it around at low altitude and with lack of power is...

Quote

Whether a simulator or real airplane is used, the training should be designed to mimic a full load of skydivers. With a sim, that’s pretty easy. With a real airplane it may mean loading the airplane with appropriate weighted and secured cargo.

Or don't load any cargo at all and limit the pilot's available power to 20" on the 182- even for takeoff... you still have the extra power there for safety, you just can't use it in normal training.

Quote

Pilots should also be expected to calculate the amount of runway needed to take-off and climb-out with a full load...

This is basic flight school stuff... the criticality comes when the calculation says you need 2000 feet, and the runway is 2300 feet... do you go? If so, where do you abort, and will the pilot actually abort as the point goes whizzing by and they're still on the ground? When the capabilities and the limits converge, criticality increases.

Quote

It’s well worth asking each of the pilots at your DZ when they completed their most recent training program, and what was included. If your DZ uses smaller piston aircraft like the Cessna 182/206, you should expect, at a minimum, annual flight training that simulates jump operations and loads. This stuff should already be available, and it shouldn’t be a big deal for a qualified pilot to show and explain what the charts and graphs mean.

Seconded... talk to your pilots and pick their brains, ask where they'd go after an engine failure at 400 feet. Same with the takeoff perfomance... see what their personal plan is for emergencies. Just think, you wouldn't take a perscription from a doctor without knowing what it's going to do to you, right?




After all of this, take what you will from an opinion... we decide every day what risks we take and which we will not. At least inform yourself about what risks you do take on the way up to altitude- then have a plan.

In the end, what is the cause of a majority of accidents? ...failure to anticipate...

[toronto_bill 0]

Quote

The most important thing we can do is to push our operators and drop zone owners (DZO) to demand the highest level of pilot training possible. Some operators do, and some do not.

I agree. But, where do the insurance companies step into the mix?

They set the minimum standards for pilots to be insured don't they?

I applaud the DZ's that spend a few extra dollars to keep good pilots around.

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Quote

The most important thing we can do is to push our operators and drop zone owners (DZO) to demand the highest level of pilot training possible. Some operators do, and some do not.

I agree. But, where do the insurance companies step into the mix?

They set the minimum standards for pilots to be insured don't they?

Insurance companies generally set higher minimums than the FAA, but only if the aircraft is insured. Some are not insured, including at least a few turbine aircraft that I know of. And, just because an aircraft is insured doesn't mean the DZ or pilots are following the company requirements.

As you are talking to your pilots and DZO, ask if the aircraft is insured, and what the insurance company requirements are...that should be a pretty easy question for anybody that owns an airplane and needs to hire pilots.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[kkeenan 13]

Quote

Quote

Training should include a simulated loss of power at take-off, with a 180 degree turn to mimic a return to the airport with a full load.

I do hope that this is in the context of showing them how bad of an idea trying to coax it around at low altitude and with lack of power is...
...

I agree. The incidence of crashes from attempted return to the runway is pretty high. It's very tempting, which is why so many pilots convince themselves they can pull it off. Among accident investigators, it's known to be a low-probability move.

Kevin

_____________________________________
Dude, you are so awesome...
Can I be on your ash jump ?

[akjmpplt 0]

Quote

The most important thing we can do is to push our operators and drop zone owners (DZO) to demand the highest level of pilot training possible. Some operators do, and some do not.

It would be a wonderful thing if jump pilots had some kind of training course, could practice on simulators, etc. But it's not going to happen because of the cost of the training. It's usually the light Cessna's that crash killing us, you can't find a simulator for a 182 or 206 that is going to teach you anything...the sim time would be wasted money. As for the jump-pilot checkout, unless you have a CFI on the DZ it can be problematic. The jump a/c aren't configured with dual controls (although with some time/effort most can be reinstalled easily) and I for one wouldn't ride along with someone without having a set of controls in front of me.

As long as jump pilots are considered bottom feeders and poorly paid the only people you're going to find flying the 182s and 206s are low-time pilots trying to build time to move on. (That's not to say there aren't high quality professional pilots flying 182s or 206s, I consider myself to be one ).

The DZOs must have the intergrity to employ competent, safe pilots. They have to maintain the aircraft to a level that ensures safety and legality. It seems to be a false economy to scrimp on pilot training/qualification and maintenance. Aircraft are expensive when lost and people are irreplaceble.

The jumpers have to be knowledgable enough to question when things seem wrong and they must say NO if there are problems.

Until losing my medical last year I was an active jump pilot. I flew jumpers for 15 years, 5000 loads or so. I've had some things happen over the years but always got the airplane back on the runway. I credit that to my practicing for the bad things that can happen. That's the way I approach flying. That is the mindset that everyone must have to ensure safety, be it the DZO, the pilots or the jumpers.

A few years ago the DZO called me up over the winter and said he was getting a Caravan. I coughed up $5K and took the Caravan course at TTC. He never got the Caravan so the money was wasted, but if he had I would have been ready.

It's sad to hear of a crash like this that is so preventable.

SmugMug

[speedy 0]

Quote

Seconded... talk to your pilots and pick their brains, ask where they'd go after an engine failure at 400 feet.

I did ask our pilot that yesterday! He answered, straight ahead and hope to clear the trees at the end of the runway.
He also said that it is critcal to react quickly enough, feather the prop to reduce drag, control the aircraft to stop it turning over the engine.
I thought at the time, ohh he's going to put us in the trees, but after reading what you posted, it seems he has the right plan. Interesting.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl