A letter to the editor of Parachutist

[diverdriver 5]

I have just emailed this letter to the editor of Parachutist about the August issue's "Safety Check".

[HR]Dear Parachutist Editor,



I am glad to see Kevin Gibson's article in August's issue of Parachutist talking about aircraft safety. But I am also left with the feeling that this is a day late and a dollar short. He is right on about what he states skydivers and skydiving operations should be doing about aircraft operations. But unfortunately, the USPA leadership should have been doing much more of this and more loudly over the years. Kevin states, "And although skydiving continued to grow, reports of wrecks and sloppy aircraft operation diminished." I could not disagree with this more.



On my website, www.DiverDriver.com, I track jump plane accidents through the NTSB website. I list the type of aircraft, fatal/non-fatal, where it happened, the date, and the link to the NTSB file. Kevin goes on to say, "Lest we forget, two recent fatal Cessna crashes should sound an alarm to all jumpers to again notice the planes they jump from." Excuse me but the alarm bells have been going off since 1998. I've been trying to get this industry to take notice that we have a problem with our aircraft operations. We have twice as many accidents per 100,000 hours of flying than General Aviation. That's an average of 12 jump plane accidents per year or more. When I started sounding the warning in 1998 we had 7 jump plane accidents 2 of which were fatal. I said that the bomb was ticking and waiting to go off. I was pooh poohed and ignored mostly. In 1999 we had one of the worst years ever with jump planes. There were 14 accidents of which 6 ended in a fatality. Everyone was in an uproar about jump planes. But the trend didn't stop there. The year 2000 had 5 accidents with one fatal repositioning flight. 2001 had 12 accidents with 2 fatal jump plane accidents. 2002 had 15 accidents and 4 fatal jump plane accidents (to be true, the collision between the Golden Knights porter and a C-182 is counted twice because both planes involved were jump planes).



So you say the number of accidents declined? In 1992 there were 7 accidents. In 2002 there were 15. How is that a decline? Look at the numbers more closely before stating that we are doing better as an industry. Jump planes crash twice as often as General Aviation aircraft. That is comparing us to other private pilots, student pilots, and commercial general aviation pilots. We should be doing as good if not better than GA because of our professional commercial pilots. But we are not. Why?



Why is it that flight instruction flights (which average about the same number of cycles as jump planes) have a better accident rate per 100,000 hours of flying than GA? The NTSB states that it is because there is a Commercial Pilot with a Flight Instructor Rating in the right seat supervising the operation. They run their planes sometimes harder than jump planes. Going from high power to idle simulating engine failure after engine failure until the student gets it right. Anyone who argues jump planes are run the hardest and that's why they break more needs to look at the whole industry a little better before making that statement. If we know they are running hard then we should be doing what is necessary to bring those numbers down. Not pat ourselves on the back and say we've been doing ok for now. Because really, we haven't.



Aircraft maintenance in this industry as a whole is horrible. Pilot training in emergencies is lacking. And adherence to FARs is cavalier at best at many DZs. Is your DZ one of them? How do you know to check? The FAA expects skydiving to be self-regulating. But when complaints about DZ ops have been made to the Regional Directors they have flat out refused to do anything saying, "That's an FAA problem". It goes round and round and nothing gets done. If you do nothing, nothing will happen except more accidents. So what's it going to be USPA BOD? I spoke to you at the July 2002 BOD meeting at Skydive Chicago. I got blank stares in return when I sounded my warning then. Now, a year later, we have a half page article in Parachutist to get people to pay attention.



Again, it's a day late and a dollar short. Hope we won't waste tomorrow. The membership should back you. Do the right thing and make it very uncomfortable for the operations we know to be lacking. Peer pressure is our ally to making this industry ready for the next time it expands. If we can't handle it now, how can we handle it later?



Chris Schindler
www.DiverDriver.com

edited to change "waist" to "waste". Sheesh...darn spell check.

[webracer 0]

Chris,
I'm glad to have you on our side. Most jumpers just assume the planes are safe, and that the DZOs "must" comply with the FAA, when in fact many things may be overlooked. It is back to the "it can't happen to me (us) mentality. We as skydivers know that mentality is deadly, but when it comes to aircraft, that is exactly the position taken. So many of us assume the danger only starts when we leave the door.
Keep on them, for all of us!

Troy

I am now free to exercise my downward mobility.

[diverdriver 5]

I am but one voice. But if you agree with me. Then I suggest you contact your Regional and National Directors to make them take notice. If they then believe what I say is true then as a group we can change even more for the better. We are skydivers.

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

[wmw999 2,122]

I'm told that Southwest is able to maintain their high airplane usage and on-time record because of their superlative maintenance -- do you know if this is true? If so, it's a pretty good indicator that superlative maintenance is a good business decision, too.

Just a thought for the DZ owner-types out there.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[sducoach 0]

Chris,

Thank you. I just forwarded the KA info you wanted to your e.

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[Racenic 0]

Thank you for being on our side.
Just an FYI I went back to Cal City a couple of week ago to make some skydives (haven't been out there in a year)
First thing I notices was 2 pilots at the controls of the Otter.
Van (owner of DZ and one of the pilots) said "he feels it's better to fly with 2 sets of eyes and hands instead of one, to decrease the chances of having an accident, or if a problem was to arise.
In addition they fly a lot of military loads during the week for Edwards AFB and China Lake Navy.
The military requires 2 pilots
Maybe other drop zones should look to having 2 pilots to decrease accidents.

Nick D

The key to Immortality is- first living a life worth remembering”

[diverdriver 5]

I would say that before getting two pilots for planes that only require one we should make sure they have proper, standard training. But yes, some jump planes do require two pilots because that is how the plane was certified due to its complexity and or weight.

There is no standard and no obligation to prove training for jump pilots either through the USPA or FAA. A good idea might be to put together a pilot proficiency card much like they have for getting a JM rating that pilots would fill out every year with designated Jump Pilot trainers. It's only an idea but it would be more of a network of knowledge than we have now.

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

[happythoughts 0]

Chris, I am not a pilot, but my friend once told me that the most dangerous time is at takeoff. Since jump pilots takeoff and land all day, is this a contributing factor?

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Chris, I am not a pilot, but my friend once told me that the most dangerous time is at takeoff. Since jump pilots takeoff and land all day, is this a contributing factor?

Is what a contributing factor? Every takeoff is followed by a landing no matter what. So, just the way you wrote it seems you're saying that takeoffs are factors in landing accidents. I suppose if you never took off then you never would have an accident right? But really, takeoff is a high risk time because most jump planes operate at the max of their envelope on takeoff. They are usually full of jummpers putting them at the max allowable weight for takeoff called max gross weight. You do not have a lot of performance and you will be using more runway for takeoff than if you were lighter.

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

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Is what a contributing factor?

Like you mentioned, jump planes are operating at their max stress level on takeoff. It must be tougher on the motor and airframe than regular flight.

The cycle time for an Otter is 20 minutes. One out of every 20 is spent during taxi and takeoff. On a regular type of flight, the plane takes off and may fly for 90 or 120 minutes before landing. Thus, a higher proportion of time is spent during the high-stress takeoff part.

As an Otter pilot, you do 14 takeoffs a day. A regular pilot has to wait for cargo/passengers to load/unload. Maybe he does 4 takeoffs in a day.

[AggieDave 6]

Question:

Why is skydiving compared to GA, when skydiving is a commercial operation, wouldn't that compare to commercial avaition?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

I'm told that Southwest is able to maintain their high airplane usage and on-time record because of their superlative maintenance -- do you know if this is true? If so, it's a pretty good indicator that superlative maintenance is a good business decision, too.

Just a thought for the DZ owner-types out there.

Wendy W.

Wendy,
Damn good point.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Quote

Is what a contributing factor?

Like you mentioned, jump planes are operating at their max stress level on takeoff. It must be tougher on the motor and airframe than regular flight.

The cycle time for an Otter is 20 minutes. One out of every 20 is spent during taxi and takeoff. On a regular type of flight, the plane takes off and may fly for 90 or 120 minutes before landing. Thus, a higher proportion of time is spent during the high-stress takeoff part.

As an Otter pilot, you do 14 takeoffs a day. A regular pilot has to wait for cargo/passengers to load/unload. Maybe he does 4 takeoffs in a day.

14 loads? Try 37. That's the max loads I've done in a day. And yah, it is very demanding on the pilot. It wouldn't be a bad thing to see operations institute a maximum number of hours you could fly in a day. Course, that would limit how much the pilot could make since they are paid per load usually.

Yes, you are under high stress on takeoff. But it doesn't work the same for turbine engines as it does for piston engines. Unless the piston engine is turbo charged then you pretty much make max power on takeoff and that's it. You decrease power as you climb. A turbine engine can produce that max power for an extended period after takeoff. But they are designed to. The reduction gear box for a PT-6-27 is actually derated from what it is truly capable of. That how you design "robustness" into a mechanical system. You set wide margins and you adhere to them to get full expected life out of them. And even when derated the -27s put out a lot of power.

But actually there are many aspects to jump ops safety. Maintenance and cycles is one aspect. Pilot training is another. Aircraft fueling, oiling, and loading yet another section. It's a long list. We must pay attention to them all. That is why I list all the jump plane accidents I can find. You can read for yourself the varied reasons why jump planes have accidents.

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

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Question:

Why is skydiving compared to GA, when skydiving is a commercial operation, wouldn't that compare to commercial avaition?

We have to look at what FARs we operate under. Skydiving is considered to be General Aviation because we operate under Part 91. We also follow part 105 but that is just for the skydiving aspect of it. You can have commercial operations that are part 91. Flight instruction, banner towing, aerial photography, crop dusting are examples of commercial aviation under part 91. You can get paid to do it.

What you are thinking about is charter and airline operations and that is Part 135 and 121 respectively. And I was to compare our numbers to part 135 charter ops it would be an even worse comparison. They have a much better accident rate than GA. Generally it is due to the increase scrutiny from the FAA. You must have a working manual that is approved by the FAA in order to train your employees. You have to have a chief pilot listed that has at least 3 years in a 135 operation. You have to have a chief mechanic listed that has at least 3 years working on planes in a 135 operation. Your pilots must receive FAA approved initial and recurrent training. In skydiving, there are no such requirements even though it is shown that standardize approved initial and recurrent training can go a long way to reducing accidents.

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

[Tonto 1]

Quote

First thing I notices was 2 pilots at the controls of the Otter.

Didn't help the dudes on the Otter at Perris in April 1992...

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Once again Chris,

Thank you for keeping an eye on all of this and a database for it.

As for the USPA, I often find the decisions and policies they pass to be more of a reaction, instead of a pro-active measure. I'm not sure who is more to blame for this, the USAP BOD, the members that fight most changes the USPA proposes, or the members that refuse to help out by voting or doing a proxy.

My question to you - shouldn't the first line of defense on this be the pilot in command? True, there are a vast amount of PIC jump pilots that are trying to gain extra hours and lack the training to recognize all the problems a plane may have. However, you and I both know there are pilots out there that get into an airplane they know is unsafe to fly, but do it anyway. If those pilots continue to do so, shouldn't they be blacklisted? Maybe the threat of losing their jobs would force them to be more safety cautious (even thou possible loss of life is not motivation enough)?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[tombuch 0]

Quote

My question to you - shouldn't the first line of defense on this be the pilot in command? True, there are a vast amount of PIC jump pilots that are trying to gain extra hours and lack the training to recognize all the problems a plane may have. However, you and I both know there are pilots out there that get into an airplane they know is unsafe to fly, but do it anyway.

Yup, the pilots should be the first line of defense, but often they are pressured to fly unsound aircraft, or in dangerous/illegal conditions. The pilots need a back up, and that's us---the jumpers.

Make sure your pilots know that safety is your top concern, and that you expect them to stay on the ground if the airplane needs maintenance. Likewise, stay on the ground yourself if sky conditions don't allow safe flight (cloud clearance/visibility).

If you have a question about maintenance or safety, ask the pilot or DZ owner directly. If you are not satisfied with the answer, find another pilot at a different airport (perhaps even a flight school) who can give you some additional background and help you to evaluate the dz answers.

Chris mentioned the importance of pilot training. As customers we can insist that the pilots who fly us have annual training, including simulators. Full motion simulation is especially important for multiengine turbine pilots, but few pilots get that kind of expensive annual training unless it is required by the insurance company. Talk to the DZ owner and insist that your professional pilots get professional training at least every year.

One of the biggest safety issues is weight and balance, and that is often ignored in the skydiving world. Find a rotten weather day and ask your pilot to explain weight and balance issues related to your airplanes. Ask to see the actual weight and balance with a full load at takeoff, and ask to see how that changes when jumpers move around the cabin. Every pilot is required to calculate weight and balance for every flight. In most operations, weight and balance is calculated based on standard parameters and an acceptable envelope is generated...look at your operation and see if the way they are calculating that standard weight and balance is really the way the plane is loaded, and make sure the weights being used are close to actual weights. Weight and balance is all about math, so it can be a bit of a challenge for some of us to understand, but it is what keeps the airplane in the sky so it is important.

While the pilot is the first line of defense, the jumpers are the second line of defense. Insist on a safe operation, and if you have concerns, share them with the drop zone owner. If the DZO doesn't help, call your USPA regional director to apply a bit more pressure. If that doesn't work, find a different DZ.

Tom Buchanan
S&TA, The Ranch
Commercial Pilot (IAMSEL,G)
Author, JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

For some other thoughts, check out an article I wrote for The Ranch web site a while ago. It's listed as "Piston or Turbine" and is the current article at http://ranchskydive.com/safety/index.htm.

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

[diverdriver 5]

Excellent article Tom.

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

[ChrisG 0]

Chris,

You think its bad now, you should see some of the planes I jumped from 20 years ago! In my opinion
the maintainance and pilots have been steadily improving over the years.
Can the figures you state all be contributed to only dumb pilots and shitty airplanes? How many of the accidents happened to experienced pilots flying highly maintained airplanes? None?
Airplanes do not have to be maintained to the higest standards to be safe. Also, pilots do not need thousands of hours of flight time to be safe.
It appears to me that your concern for the utmost ammount of safety and making the FAA more aware of the higher accident rates, will only cause more small DZ's to close down.
The money is not there for the small DZ's to maintain thier planes to the higest standards, so does that mean they should close down? What other choice would they have?

Chris Grenner
D-7250

[freakydiver 0]

Done - and "props" (heh) on the letter btw.

Very well put indeed.

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Chris,

You think its bad now, you should see some of the planes I jumped from 20 years ago! In my opinion
the maintainance and pilots have been steadily improving over the years.
Can the figures you state all be contributed to only dumb pilots and shitty airplanes? How many of the accidents happened to experienced pilots flying highly maintained airplanes? None?
Airplanes do not have to be maintained to the higest standards to be safe. Also, pilots do not need thousands of hours of flight time to be safe.
It appears to me that your concern for the utmost ammount of safety and making the FAA more aware of the higher accident rates, will only cause more small DZ's to close down.
The money is not there for the small DZ's to maintain thier planes to the higest standards, so does that mean they should close down? What other choice would they have?

Chris Grenner
D-7250

The claim is that there are fewer accidents now than there were 10 years ago. I disagree. I've shown there are many more accidents now. The accident rate is there and it sucks. How can you accept this? We have commercial pilots having accidents at twice the rate as a group that includes student pilots, private pilots, and other commercial pilots. This is doing ok? I don't agree.

And if DZs need to charge more to do what is right then they'll have to charge more. The problem I see is that many DZs are not doing the basics let alone the best. Contaminated fuel? Are you kidding? We've been flying for 100 years and we can't figure the basics of fuel filtering? Come on now.

A pilot has an engine failure at 10,000 feet directly over the airport and they can't make the runway? Come on.

A pilot runs out of gas on takeoff and stalls and spins killing everyone? Come on now. You really think this is acceptable? I don't think you do. In fact I know you don't. But these mistakes keep on happening year after year. You don't have to go to an expensive flight simulator to learn how to fuel a friggin airplane do you? These are the basics I'm talking about. And I never said I thought simulator based training should be mandatory for every pilot. Is there a simulator for a 182 that's full motion? I don't think so. So let's not put words in my mouth.

I find it interesting when I bring up jump plane safety and accident statistics. I keep hearing how I single handedly will run small DZs out of buisness. I don't think I have that power really. But I do have the power to put peer pressure on operations to use qualified pilots who are given a thorough check out in how to fly jumpers safely and professionally. I agree with Kevin Gibson 100% on his last 3 paragraphs where he talks about avoiding DZs that overload planes, do negative Gs for entertainment, and have a cavalier attitude towards jump plane safety. There are things we can do.

We had a large expansion of jump ops during the 90s. The jump plane accidents rose too. Then we also had a showing of a few ferry flight accidents where jumpers where hurt and killed by jump planes being flown between boogies or demos. We have to make sure that the great jump pilot that spots us on all the time is ready to do that night flight in snowy weather conditions. It's a different environment than circling over the same airport during the day in clear air. Are they ready for the change? Who's checking their currency? A jump plane crashed in low ceilings with almost no fuel left because he deviated from an ATC assigned altitude. We have to be careful of the environment we allow our jump planes to opperate in. We must recognize our own limitations. And we must always be able to perform the basics.

Flight Safety simulator training doesn't mean squat if you are having engine failures once a month. Something is wrong with the system. You must pay attention to all aspects. Otherwise we'll just continue havig DZO/pilots melting their turbine sections because they didn't pay attention to their pilots alarm about fuel flow fluctuation.

Accepting what we have now is not my idea of "self policing". We need to be doing better. It's a dirty little secret that not many want to talk about. I suggest we clean it up ourselves before someone else makes us.

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

[freakydiver 0]

Hey man - if small DZs go out of business because of safety issue - survival of the fittest. I'm ALL for it.

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Hey man - if small DZs go out of business because of safety issue - survival of the fittest. I'm ALL for it.

I started at a 3 Cessna DZ. It was very well run and I received good training because the DZO demanded quality from his pilots. I was glad to receive that training because I then ended up at an operation where all of my skill was tested before I came to SDC. This small cessna DZ did good maintenance and really never made me feel bad about bringing up squaks on the airplane. So I know a small DZ with a cessna CAN do it right. And I think they will prosper even if the DZ near by them has a turbine but everyone is scared to get on them. If the DZO is smoking crack and flying jumpers not many are going to want to stick around. Those that do stick around, you really have to scratch your head and say "Why?"

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

[freakydiver 0]

Understandably so. It is certainly tough for us non-pilots to make judgements though, and quite frankly, that scares the living piss out of me sometimes when I get on the plane.

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[Fast 0]

I have very little experience in this area, however the things that reading this thread that come into my mind are, Do jump planes get checked for saftey related issues often enough, compared to other planes. What I mean is does the average jump pilot check a plane out for any maintnence issues just once at the begining of the day, then fly 20+ loads? Or is there some standard of looking at a plane more often. This by no means adresses the problem of planes running into each other.

My guess is that the student pilots, flying with trained instructors, or more comercial based flying operations are looking at thier planes more often to see the little things that might prevent a blown out engine, or some other problem in flight that is not related to human error.

Again, I don't know much about flying planes, or all the things that are done on a regular basis, but this is just something that came into mind.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka