0
PolinaVin

Lodi Aff

Recommended Posts

***
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

***

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote


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.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hundreds 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The 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.

Quote

I 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.

Quote

There 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Hundreds 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Hundreds 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote


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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The 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:

Quote

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.



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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

The 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:

Quote

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.



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

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.

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