BigMark 1 #51 March 24, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuote Irrelevant... I'll never jump there. Ever jump at Perris? No. Why? They've got an excellent reputation. Now... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PiLFy 0 #52 March 24, 2013 ***QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Irrelevant... I'll never jump there. Ever jump at Perris? No. Why? They've got an excellent reputation. Now... You guys are referring to the '92 crash? No one was using seatbelts back then. The FAA changed that after that horrible crash. For over twenty years, every conscientious DZO has enforced their use. Lodi's hasn't... The Perris crash was caused by using a backup fuel truck, following a quake the previous evening. The fuel's not having been run through a filter got past them. That was an extremely unfortunate oversight. It was NOT a systemic, flagrant disregard for safety & maintenance procedures. I'd jump @ Perris w/o hesitation. NFW I'd ever get in a plane @Lodi. They've a history of willfully endangering their customer's lives to increase profits... Even if I were willing to accept their word that they're actually maintaining the planes, now? They still endangered Jumpers who had put their trust in that DZ. That's inexcusable conduct. You do what you want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #53 April 1, 2013 QuoteAnd you have jumped at Lodi exactly how many times? And number of jumps at a location teaches you about aircraft maintenance how?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
uberchris 0 #54 April 1, 2013 QuoteW/all due respect, Pete. What good is new gear if the wings fall off the frackin plane? What Lodi did may never be able to be lived down. then dont jump there. problem solved =)gravity brings me down......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PiLFy 0 #55 April 1, 2013 I never intended to jump there. This thread is for the OP's friend. Now, she can make an informed decision Problem solved... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Whamie 0 #56 April 1, 2013 AFF at Perris was a cake walk..didn't have to repeat any jumps.... Then again, i accumulated 30 minutes in the tunnel as part of my training during AFF Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
williammonk 0 #57 April 3, 2013 AFF at Perris is top notch. Should be the industry standard. I've jumped with fresh new guys out of Lodi's "AFF" program, and have seen some scary things. Students graduating at Perris are safer and have much much better ground school type knowledge. I would not allow a friend to learn at Lodi. Go somewhere else. William. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
uberchris 0 #58 April 4, 2013 Quote***QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Irrelevant... I'll never jump there. Ever jump at Perris? No. Why? They've got an excellent reputation. Now... You guys are referring to the '92 crash? No one was using seatbelts back then. The FAA changed that after that horrible crash. For over twenty years, every conscientious DZO has enforced their use. Lodi's hasn't... The Perris crash was caused by using a backup fuel truck, following a quake the previous evening. The fuel's not having been run through a filter got past them. That was an extremely unfortunate oversight. It was NOT a systemic, flagrant disregard for safety & maintenance procedures. I'd jump @ Perris w/o hesitation. NFW I'd ever get in a plane @Lodi. They've a history of willfully endangering their customer's lives to increase profits... Even if I were willing to accept their word that they're actually maintaining the planes, now? They still endangered Jumpers who had put their trust in that DZ. That's inexcusable conduct. You do what you want. weird. the major airlines have a NASTY history of doing just that: cutting costs and slacking on maintenance to save money. are you saying you NEVER get in a commercial airline and take a flight? in any case i could care less. i like lodi prices, i just prefer the people at a more local SF dropzone alot more than lodi or id jump there all the time.gravity brings me down......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigMark 1 #59 April 4, 2013 Every dropzone is subject to an oversight bringing down a plane, sometimes it takes multiple ones, like bad fuel then feathering the wrong prop...We are considered cargo and the planes are maintained and inspected as such, always be ready to get out that door if you can. How many in this sport have died in plane crashes versus bouncing? I HATE planes but they haven't made skydiving elevators yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
westcoastSD 0 #60 April 4, 2013 QuoteAnd number of jumps at a location teaches you about aircraft maintenance how? Not much when you talk about your experience there, but when you talk about the experience of the DZ then that is a different story. Almost 50 years of experience at the parachute centre, that is 5 decades... Hundreds of thousands of loads. How many fatalities due to aircraft? None. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #61 April 4, 2013 QuoteHundreds of thousands of loads. How many fatalities due to aircraft? One if his king airs went down and the direct cause was a maintenance issue. So while not technically THERE.... His planes HAVE gone down for MX issues before."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
westcoastSD 0 #62 April 4, 2013 Can you provide evidence of that? MX issues and pilot issues are often combined to cause a plane to go down. If what you say is the case, I would be interested to see what happened. Engine out >>> Crash or Loss of control >>> Crash... Planes have issues all the time, it is how they are dealt with that counts., Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #63 April 4, 2013 QuoteThe Oleo broke on landing. The King air went down because of a Fuel Pump. That is a crash due to bad MX. http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2008/a08p0242/a08p0242.asp "the high-pressure, engine-driven fuel pump drive splines were worn and corroded beyond the point of failure " The FAA also said he flew a Twin Otter on more than 2,600 flights when critical parts were well past their life limits and without inspecting portions of the wings for corrosion. QuoteI am sure there may have been some oversight on MX, Nobody is perfect 2600 flights over the service life of the control cables? Running your fuel pump WAY past its service life? You may think that is fine, but it really is stupid as hell. QuoteThere is no other place on earth with they type of experience that the parachute center has. Yes, because most people do the required MX on their planes and make people wear seatbelts!"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PiLFy 0 #64 April 4, 2013 [B]"in any case i could care less." Ditto... You're comparing apples & oranges w/that airline analogy. Go argue w/someone who cares. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycatcher68 7 #65 April 4, 2013 QuoteQuoteHundreds of thousands of loads. How many fatalities due to aircraft? One if his king airs went down and the direct cause was a maintenance issue. So while not technically THERE.... His planes HAVE gone down for MX issues before. The King Air crashed due to pilot error, the pilot shut down the good engine instead of the failed one. Can't friggin' blame that on maintenance.What if the Bible had been written by Stephen King? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #66 April 4, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteHundreds of thousands of loads. How many fatalities due to aircraft? One if his king airs went down and the direct cause was a maintenance issue. So while not technically THERE.... His planes HAVE gone down for MX issues before. The King Air crashed due to pilot error, the pilot shut down the good engine instead of the failed one. Can't friggin' blame that on maintenance. You can blame the engine dying on lack of MX"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycatcher68 7 #67 April 5, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuote One if his king airs went down and the direct cause was a maintenance issue. The King Air crashed due to pilot error, the pilot shut down the good engine instead of the failed one. Can't friggin' blame that on maintenance. You can blame the engine dying on lack of MX ...but not the crash, King Airs fly pretty well on one engine, as long as the pilot doesn't shut it down.What if the Bible had been written by Stephen King? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #68 April 5, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote One if his king airs went down and the direct cause was a maintenance issue. The King Air crashed due to pilot error, the pilot shut down the good engine instead of the failed one. Can't friggin' blame that on maintenance. You can blame the engine dying on lack of MX ...but not the crash, King Airs fly pretty well on one engine, as long as the pilot doesn't shut it down. Without the lack of MX, the engine would not have died. If the engine had not if died, the plane would not have crashed. So to claim no plane has crashed due to the bad MX from Dause is false. You can try to play semantics all day. But Dause's lack of MX has caused a crash."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PiLFy 0 #69 April 5, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote One if his king airs went down and the direct cause was a maintenance issue. The King Air crashed due to pilot error, the pilot shut down the good engine instead of the failed one. Can't friggin' blame that on maintenance. You can blame the engine dying on lack of MX ...but not the crash, King Airs fly pretty well on one engine, as long as the pilot doesn't shut it down. Without the lack of MX, the engine would not have died. If the engine had not if died, the plane would not have crashed. So to claim no plane has crashed due to the bad MX from Dause is false. You can try to play semantics all day. But Dause's lack of MX has caused a crash. I may be confusing two separate incidents regarding the King Air. Was it the '92 Perris Otter, or that King Air, where the engine-kill switches were reversed? Causing the pilot to kill the good engine by mistake. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycatcher68 7 #70 April 6, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote One if his king airs went down and the direct cause was a maintenance issue. The King Air crashed due to pilot error, the pilot shut down the good engine instead of the failed one. Can't friggin' blame that on maintenance. You can blame the engine dying on lack of MX ...but not the crash, King Airs fly pretty well on one engine, as long as the pilot doesn't shut it down. Without the lack of MX, the engine would not have died. If the engine had not if died, the plane would not have crashed. So to claim no plane has crashed due to the bad MX from Dause is false. You can try to play semantics all day. But Dause's lack of MX has caused a crash. The engine failure should not have, and didn't cause, the crash. Your statement was that it was "the direct cause" of the crash. The direct cause of the crash was the pilot mistakenly shutting down an operating engine. It's not semantics. The King Air could have, and should have, been able to safely fly and land on one engine without crashing.What if the Bible had been written by Stephen King? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycatcher68 7 #71 April 6, 2013 http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2008/a08p0242/a08p0242.aspWhat if the Bible had been written by Stephen King? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #72 April 6, 2013 QuoteThe engine failure should not have, and didn't cause, the crash Ah, so the pilot was just going to crash on that flight anyway? Please, you can play semantics all you want. Dause didn't do the MX and that caused the engine to die. Yes, the pilot screwed up.... But the chain of events that started that crash was Dause's lack of maintenance. You can make excuses all you want.... It is clear that Dause has repeatedly failed to maintain his planes. As for your claim that the MX was not at fault .... Maybe you should read the transport Canada finding: 1. The general condition of the aircraft, the engine time before overhaul (TBO) over-run and the missed inspection items demonstrated inadequate maintenance that was not detected by regulatory oversight. 2. The TBO over-run and missed inspections resulted in excessive spline wear in the left engine-driven fuel pump going undetected. The left engine lost power due to mechanical failure of the engine fuel pump drive splines. 3. The horizontal engine instrument arrangement and the lack of recent emergency training made quick engine malfunction identification difficult. This resulted in the pilot shutting down the wrong engine, causing a dual-engine power loss and a forced landing. 4. Not using the restraint devices contributed to the seriousness of injuries to some passengers. So transport Canada does not agree with you"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycatcher68 7 #73 April 6, 2013 QuoteQuoteThe engine failure should not have, and didn't cause, the crash Ah, so the pilot was just going to crash on that flight anyway? Please, you can play semantics all you want. Dause didn't do the MX and that caused the engine to die. Yes, the pilot screwed up.... But the chain of events that started that crash was Dause's lack of maintenance. You can make excuses all you want.... It is clear that Dause has repeatedly failed to maintain his planes. As for your claim that the MX was not at fault .... Maybe you should read the transport Canada finding: 1. The general condition of the aircraft, the engine time before overhaul (TBO) over-run and the missed inspection items demonstrated inadequate maintenance that was not detected by regulatory oversight. 2. The TBO over-run and missed inspections resulted in excessive spline wear in the left engine-driven fuel pump going undetected. The left engine lost power due to mechanical failure of the engine fuel pump drive splines. 3. The horizontal engine instrument arrangement and the lack of recent emergency training made quick engine malfunction identification difficult. This resulted in the pilot shutting down the wrong engine, causing a dual-engine power loss and a forced landing. 4. Not using the restraint devices contributed to the seriousness of injuries to some passengers. So transport Canada does not agree with you I agree the failure to overhaul the engines and a mechanic's failure to properly inspect the left fuel pump caused the left engine to fail. Can you explain what maintenance issue caused the right engine to fail? Wait, let's see what the Transport Safety Board of Canada (not Transport Canada) says about it: QuoteThe horizontal engine instrument arrangement and the lack of recent emergency training made quick engine malfunction identification difficult. This resulted in the pilot shutting down the wrong engine, causing a dual-engine power loss and a forced landing. I think the Board agrees with me. It was the pilot who caused the crash by creating a two-engine out situation. The failure of the second engine had nothing to do with maintenance. You can blame Dause for not overhauling the engines, but you can't blame him for a mechanic not properly inspecting the fuel pump. Dause did have the maintenance performed, it was done incorrectly.What if the Bible had been written by Stephen King? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #74 April 6, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe engine failure should not have, and didn't cause, the crash Ah, so the pilot was just going to crash on that flight anyway? Please, you can play semantics all you want. Dause didn't do the MX and that caused the engine to die. Yes, the pilot screwed up.... But the chain of events that started that crash was Dause's lack of maintenance. You can make excuses all you want.... It is clear that Dause has repeatedly failed to maintain his planes. As for your claim that the MX was not at fault .... Maybe you should read the transport Canada finding: 1. The general condition of the aircraft, the engine time before overhaul (TBO) over-run and the missed inspection items demonstrated inadequate maintenance that was not detected by regulatory oversight. 2. The TBO over-run and missed inspections resulted in excessive spline wear in the left engine-driven fuel pump going undetected. The left engine lost power due to mechanical failure of the engine fuel pump drive splines. 3. The horizontal engine instrument arrangement and the lack of recent emergency training made quick engine malfunction identification difficult. This resulted in the pilot shutting down the wrong engine, causing a dual-engine power loss and a forced landing. 4. Not using the restraint devices contributed to the seriousness of injuries to some passengers. So transport Canada does not agree with you I agree the failure to overhaul the engines and a mechanic's failure to properly inspect the left fuel pump caused the left engine to fail. Can you explain what maintenance issue caused the right engine to fail? Wait, let's see what the Transport Safety Board of Canada (not Transport Canada) says about it: QuoteThe horizontal engine instrument arrangement and the lack of recent emergency training made quick engine malfunction identification difficult. This resulted in the pilot shutting down the wrong engine, causing a dual-engine power loss and a forced landing. I think the Board agrees with me. It was the pilot who caused the crash by creating a two-engine out situation. The failure of the second engine had nothing to do with maintenance. You can blame Dause for not overhauling the engines, but you can't blame him for a mechanic not properly inspecting the fuel pump. Dause did have the maintenance performed, it was done incorrectly. Like I said, you can make excuses all you want. Dause didn't do the MX on the plane. You keep making excuses... People without an agenda can clearly see the facts. You have a good day."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutem 0 #75 April 6, 2013 Crappy maint. and crappy pilot, you sure are helping the Lodi side of this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
