Keeping hush hush on incidents/crashes

[pilotdave 0]

Not sure if this fully answers your question, but here's what the NTSB says about reporting accidents (NTSB 830):

Quote

The operator of any civil aircraft... shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (Board) field office when:

(a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed incidents occur: ...

And the definition of an aircraft accident is:

Quote

Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.

Substantial damage is defined as:

Quote

Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.

Dave

[kallend 1,927]

Quote

If a dropzone has a plane crash with a jumpplane even if skydivers are not involved, do skydivers still have the right to know about it?

Reporting requirements are in NTSB Part 830

www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*64926719!mtd*41!var*15!cgi*/cgi-bin/get_file!buf*66!src*_landings/pages/fars.html!ref*FAR/part_830/toc.html

Essentially there is a legal requirement to report all aircraft accidents that result in fatalities or serious injuries or substantial damage to the aircraft (all these are defined in the document). And yes, the public has the right to know.

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

So, in regards to the safety and maintenance of aircraft, where do our rights as skydivers begin and end?

Somewhere about here: "You pays your money, you takes your chances."

Quit with the "entitlement" and "rights" thing. Ain't no rights other than to take your money elsewhere if you don't like the situation.

Going back to the rather heated discussions about waivers, I recall a common theme that skydivers were responsible for determining if a DZ operation was safe. If they died because the operation was not, it was their own fault for not checking more closely. Are you asserting that they don't have the right to attempt to do so, or what exactly?

Her question is a fair one. Where does it start or end? Your response answered neither.

If we're going to hold people to a waiver, then the DZ also has to hold up their end of the deal. Being less than forthcoming about a crash with a jump plane seems to violate that .

[flypunk 0]

I think the issue is the distinction between trying to keep it a secret and blowing it out on public.

Yes they have an oblidgation to disclose it and they do. That is done through the NTSB.

Do they have an obligation to post it in here, or at the DZ or to even tell the jumpers... no.

Do the jumpers have a right to know, yes... go read the NTSB reports.

Do jumpers have a right to have the DZ inform them directly and keep them informed and give explanations... no.

Do you have a right to check on the dz safety and see if you want to jump there, yes, Is there anything you can do if they dont provide info, yes, dont jump.

The waiver is for their protection not yours and it does not hold them accountable for any disclosure of information.

So should the waiver include how many injuries the instructors have an why, and how many malfunctions the system has had and why? or how many collisions and or equipment malfunctions your future cameraman has had and why?

Yes you can do your part and try to find all this out, but they are in no obligation to provide this for you, if this doesn't work for you then you dont have to jump.

...

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Her question is a fair one. Where does it start or end? Your response answered neither.

Actually it answered both. You have none. There is no "right" that lets you "demand" information from the owner of a private business (as most DZ's are). If the owner does not wish to share the information with YOU, or place it on a public forum they are under no obligation to do so. In the event of an outside agency (read: the FAA) requiring submition of information you may, through public disclosure of information acts, be able to see portions of said information. If it's a matter of you just wanting infromation from the owner, they are required to give you exactly bupkiss. If others who may have witnessed said incident wish to report about it there is nothing to stop them.

All that said, things only get better when we share such information WITHOUT fingerpointing and backstabbing.

There is a DZ that people gripe about regularly for not allowing fun jumpers even though they are a USPA member. Previously they were involved in a lawsuit where their defense was made much harder because information they reported to and agency was shared witht he prosecution against that agencies rules and policies.

Can anyone now see why a business owner in this sport might not want to jump up and down and anounce to the world everytime some "complication" occurs?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[jumpwally 0]

The minute you charge 1 penny, all your customers should have a need to know the history of the aircraft and its maint schedule,,the problem is not all of us care,,most people are too busy burning energy trying to look and act cool and saying "fucking awesome" every 30 seconds. At times we are our own worst enemies.If every one showed up at the beginning of every month asking to see records and schedules before jumping and then having the balls to walk away and jump elsewhere if things don't look in order,,,then i think it could be the beginning of change. As a whole we could change the industry (there's really not that many of us ) quickly or as individuals we can hide behind the next guy and do nothing,,,

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[AndyMan 7]

So, if skydivers have no right to the information, how are they supposed to make educated choices about the levels of risk they undertake?

It seems to me, you can't have it both ways.

Either the DZ is upfront about risks which the jumpers undertake.

or

The DZ hides unfortunate news and the jumpers don't understand what they're getting in to.

If jumpers are to accept the risks inherient with the sport, then they must be able to collect the required data.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

The minute you charge 1 penny, all your customers should have a need to know the history of the aircraft and its maint schedule,,the problem is not all of us care

Customers may feel the "need", but they don't have a "right".

Can you go into Macy's (a department store) and expect the "right" to see proof that the wool sweater you're looking at uses wool only harvested from sheep that are hand feed bubblegum?

Can you go into a McDonalds and expect the "right" to be informed that the cows producing the milk for the milkshakes are sung lulabys everynight?

I don't think it needs to ba as militant as you have sugested, but I do agree that most of the nobs in this sport are just standing around saying "fucking awsome" every 2 minutes, and then when something happens that could be seen comming a mile away if people had just bothered to read the writing on the wall, they jump up and down screaming and hollaring about "injustice" and where are my "rights" and "someone should have done something".

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

So, if skydivers have no right to the information, how are they supposed to make educated choices about the levels of risk they undertake?

Here's that entitlement thing again. A business owner has no obligation to share any information with you. If you ask questions, and get a negative response all the time, well THAT might be your clue to go elsewhere. Like maybe to a DZ that will answer your questions.


Someone PLEASE explain something to me:

When did the idea of "rights" become confused with asking a question?

If ask me "How's your day" you have no right to the response "Fine." or any response at all for that matter.

If I sell you a piece of bubble gum the fact you gave me money for it does not mean you have a right to come into my house and see if I beat my dog. (I don't, since I don't have one. I still miss mine very much, but that's a whole different topic.)

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

You have none. There is no "right" that lets you "demand" information from the owner of a private business (as most DZ's are). If the owner does not wish to share the information with YOU, or place it on a public forum they are under no obligation to do so. In the event of an outside agency (read: the FAA) requiring submition of information you may, through public disclosure of information acts, be able to see portions of said information.

You just contradicted yourself, and many people have proven that we do have a right to information about accidents with substantial damage.

No, jumpers don't have a "right" to know what kind of ammonia the pilot used to wash the windows of the aircraft. (That's how your analogies would relate to this discussion.)

Quote

All that said, things only get better when we share such information WITHOUT fingerpointing and backstabbing.

Yup. I'll never understand dropzones that want to keep everything "on the dz." That's just stupid. It shows the character of the dz is fearful and secretive. It shows that they don't have a desire to learn and grow if their biggest concern is looking good to the outside dropzones.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

You just contradicted yourself, and many people have proven that we do have a right to information about accidents with substantial damage.

No I didn't. I said you have no "right" to information from a DZO, or an aircraft owner, or a business owner. You don't.

I did say that if information about an incident is required by law to be submited to an agency (read: FAA) then you MAY be entitled by law to SOME of the information gathered. A very different thing.

Not only that, but several people has shown that it is the responsibility of the owner of an A/C involved in a major accident to report it to the athoriatative agency(s) (i.e. the FAA, police) but no one as of yet has pointed out if those agency(s) are required to share the information or not.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[PhreeZone 16]

Once its reported to an agency it becomes public record and anyone can ask for it. You might have to use the Freedom of Information Act as justification, but they will provide it to you.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Once its reported to an agency it becomes public record and anyone can ask for it. You might have to use the Freedom of Information Act as justification, but they will provide it to you.

That's what I was looking for. And just because that act is in effect doesn't mean that the information will be easily avaliable. Political pressure, national security, lazy buracrats can all make it hard to get such information.

Point is even when you do have a "right" it's not a right to have it handed to you on a silver platter. Go out and look around, ask questions, get involved, be prepaired for answers you won't like, and resulting actions you may have to take based on those answers that might pose inconvineint solutions.

Or just stand around and say "fucking awsome" alot.

[end rant]

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Customers may feel the "need", but they don't have a "right".

for clarification from both you and Vallerina, is the subject about legal rights, moral responsibilities, or both?

Quote

Can you go into Macy's (a department store) and expect the "right" to see proof that the wool sweater you're looking at uses wool only harvested from sheep that are hand feed bubblegum?

Can you go into a McDonalds and expect the "right" to be informed that the cows producing the milk for the milkshakes are sung lulabys everynight?

If they conceal that their cows have mad cow disease, is that ok? Or can you ask if they're using growth hormones? Same questions of health practices apply to your absurd bubble gum / dog beating example. The issues are about the safety of the product they're delivering to you.

You didn't just sign a waiver with Macy's that said they can be grossly negligent, or that they can sell you sweaters that they know are not made up sheep that were fed gum. That still fraud. The difference of course is no one will die from a fake sweater.

I have no problems with protecting DZs against human error. It's not their responsibility to be infalliable. It is their duty to follow standard safety practices and if a plane is not up to those requirements, it should be grounded. And if they hide an error and I hear something weird happened, I'm likely to presume the that it was the latter, and move on. It behooves them to be upfront about it. Or at least their friends here discussing it.

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

is the subject about legal rights, moral responsibilities, or both?

I was wanting to know more of the legal rights. I already have my opinions on what dzs should do "morally."

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

for clarification from both you and Vallerina, is the subject about legal rights, moral responsibilities, or both?

I was speaking mostly about the legal aspect, as in the consumer has the "right" to walk away if they don't get the answers they like, but not much else.

As to moral, or ethical responsibilities, well I hope that I have a good judge of character when picking the DZ I will jump.

As for the average jumper? Most of them don't bother to think far enough to give a flying fuck. We can see examples of jumpers flocking to DZ's that have some of the highest fatality/injury rates per jump again and again simply because they have the lowest prices, or coolest planes, or they are alowed to get away with unsafe antics, rather than select based of of more sensible criteria.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[tombuch 0]

Somebody else already posted the NTSB reporting requirements. Many minor accidents don't need to be reported to the NTSB or FAA, but we as jumpers can express our concerns directly to the FAA. If you are aware of a serious safety problem (crazy pilot, poor maintenance, etc.) you can contact your local FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). The FAA FSDO covering your DZ can be found at: http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/fsdo/index.cfm.

For anonymous complaints you can call an 800 number as follows:

Quote

FAA's CONSUMER HOTLINE (1-800-FAA-SURE) A nationwide, toll-free telephone service provided for citizens with complaints concerning matters within FAA's purview, such as carry-on baggage, airport security procedures, child safety seats, or user services provided by FAA, including examinations, aircraft certification, and facility operations.

Individuals calling the FAA CONSUMER HOTLINE will receive a return call from an FAA official. Consumers with complex questions not answered on our list may also be referred to this toll-free number.

FAA's SAFETY HOTLINE (1-800-255-1111) Provides nationwide, toll-free telephone service. It is intended primarily for those in the aviation industry having specific knowledge of alleged violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations. The identities of callers are held in confidence, protected from disclosure under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Both hotlines operate from 8am to 4pm Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except holidays.

In the Washington, D.C., area, the Safety Hotline number is 267-8590.

In general, it is best to talk with the DZO first. If the problem is serious and you get no resolution, contacting your local FSDO may be a good idea. You can discuss the issue initially without giving your name or the name of the business, and often an inspector will take your concern as advisory, rather than as a complaint. The FAA will generally discuss potential actions with you, and you can offer your thoughts about the best way to generate compliance. For example, the FAA may do nothing at all, they may make a casual phone call to the DZ to let them know they received a call, or they may do their own field inspection. If there have been other complaints about the pilot or business they may recognize a trend and take enforcement action on their own.

You may also call the FSDO to inquire about a specific business. You can say, for example, that you are a jumper and are wondering if the FAA has had any dealings with a specific DZ, and if the DZ has had any recent ramp checks. The inspector will find somebody in the office that deals with that business, and will generally be willing to discuss their perceptions of businesses they have checked. It can be a casual kind of conversation, and you may then choose to offer your own impressions to bolster the FAA understanding of the DZ.

You could say that you normally jump at XYZ drop zone, but you were just at the ABC drop zone and you saw problems, or heard about problems second hand from a friend. The focus of your conversation could be directed at the problem DZ, but at the same time the FAA will listen to the impressions you have of your own DZ. Those impressions of both good and bad drop zones will give the FAA inspector a bit more perspective that he can use when deciding how to deal with a drop zone when he receives a formal complaint.

Again, however, I'd like to emphasize that we should talk about problems with the DZO first, whenever possible, and we should be willing to contact the FAA when a problem or perceived problem is being ignored.

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

[nightjumps 1]

Ditto.
The DZO of the 60' takeoff/engine out asked me to make the report and post to dz.com so that other 182 DZs would know about the bladder wrinkles.

[riggerrob 623]

Yup. I'll never understand dropzones that want to keep everything "on the dz." That's just stupid. It shows the character of the dz is fearful and secretive. It shows that they don't have a desire to learn and grow if their biggest concern is looking good to the outside dropzones.

[riggerrob 623]

It may be possible for rich men to conceal aircraft accidents, but few DZOs are rich enough to get away with it.
We have heard rumors of doctors landing their Bonanzas wheels-up and some A&P hustling the airplane into a hangar and it re-emerging weeks late with no new entries in the maintenance logs.
But that activity is almost impossible to conceal on a busy DZ or while ferrying.
Since they are legally required to log major repairs, few aircraft maintenance engineers (A&Ps in the USA) are willing to do repairs on the "QT." Those rare, shifty A&Ps who are willing to do repairs on the QT" are very expensive to pay off.
Besides, all engines, propellers, etc. have paper trails, that are difficult to conceal.
The bottom line is that it is expensive, difficult and illegal to conceal aircraft accidents, so few people try.

[PhreeZone 16]

Lets expand this to beyond just aircraft accidents. Why when someone is seriously injured do other jumpers only hear about it if the mainstream press picks it up?

A DZ in NorCal has come out publically and stated they will not be filing incident reports on anything less then a fatal accident. USPA is begging for S&TA's to submit incident reports on injuries, but in a given month there are 2-3 times the reported injuries on here then in Parachutist? Most times the reports here start second or third hand and then only after it is out do people that have first hand info pop in to fill in the missing pieces. Why did'nt they just bring the info up to start with?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[WFFC 1]

Quote

Substantial damage is defined as:

Quote

Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.

Dave

would a gear up landing be considered reportable, even though everyone (or just the pilot if that's the only passenger) walked away?

-----
~~~Michael

[WFFC 1]

Quote

A business owner has no obligation to share any information with you.

I agree with this statement. But, as a consumer doing my research, if the business owner has not done the required paperwork with the 'agency' (read FAA or NTSB), and I found no publicly available information on an incident that may have affected my decision to solicit (jump) the business or not, what are they hiding? All publicly available information that would affect my decision is not there. The business owner kept something hush hush to keep from having to fill out paperwork?

-----
~~~Michael

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Why did'nt they just bring the info up to start with?

Ask Michael Hawks (exSDLV).

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[WFFC 1]

Quote

Point is even when you do have a "right" it's not a right to have it handed to you on a silver platter. Go out and look around, ask questions, get involved, be prepaired for answers you won't like, and resulting actions you may have to take based on those answers that might pose inconvineint solutions.

Again, agree. but, if the business/aircraft owner do not do the required steps to report an incident and do what they can to cover it up, who does that help? I've done all the research on the FAA website on reported incidents (publicly available) and found nothing involving the business I'm choosing to solicit, but once I arrive onsite, I hear talk about an incident that happened 'several' weeks ago that would have been online when I looked. I pull out the laptop and the wireless and look again. Still no incident. Ask the business/aircraft owner (staff or representative) and they say it's out for repairs. It could possibly be in a hanger off the DZ recovering from injuries sustained on a landing with the gear up. Something that should be reported? I think so. So, in this example the business/aircraft owner is hiding something from not only you, but the 'agency' (read FAA, NTSB). Right?

-----
~~~Michael