Jump Pilot training/ratings. Read post below FIRST.

[diverdriver 5]

TAKE 2.

Ok, I thought people would get what I posted before but some did not read the post first before answering the poll. So I'll try to duplicate this again.

The subject is: Do you think there should be a standardized training for jump pilots and who should do that training. The choices are 1)No one. Do all training inhouse. 2) USPA. and 3) FAA signoff in pilot logbook like a tail wheel aircraft signoff.

The FAA does not currently require any training or documentation of training for jump pilots. It is left up to the individual operator to ensure that the pilot is properly rated, current, and checked out for the aircraft and type of jumping that will be performed. Looking at the accidents of jump aircraft over the past few years (listed HERE ) do you feel that enough is being done to ensure your safety around jump plane activity?

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

[PhreeZone 15]

The USPA currently has no legal clout. All they basically are considered is a lobbiest. If you want to do some training (which I'm all for), have the FAA handle it. They are best equiped to do this type of training and make sure it is consistant.

The USPA created a training program that should have increase the skills being taught to students, then most DZ's chopped it up to fit their existing programs. Lets not have something like this happen on pilot training too.

As for the Inhouse, thats how my DZ does it and we've had good results over the last 40 years. It all comes down to the teacher, those that can teach have good pilots, those that can't have lots of wrecked airplanes.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[SkymonkeyONE 3]

I guess it pretty much depends on the DZ, but at least where I come from (and was taught), one was instructed and critiqued by the senior jump pilot in that type. In this case, the person is my dad (with 40 years flight, jump pilot, and skydiving experience).

Chuck

[weid14 0]

If anyone had to do it and standardize it across the industry I'd say USPA (although I think its a bad idea). I wouldn't want the FAA to do it, because, frankly, I don't think they understand jump operations. The best way to do it, IMO, however, is the senior pilot breaking in the new guys, and training them, I see this done at all the bigger (and actaully smaller) DZ's I've been to. Maybe I've been fortunate in that regard.

[billvon 2,400]

>The USPA currently has no legal clout.

And the FAA doesn't know much about skydiving. And USPA does indeed have legal clout - they are referred to in the FAR's (look under demo requirements.) An entry in the FAR's requiring USPA training for any jump pilot would be no different. FAA enforcement, USPA training.

>The USPA created a training program that should have increase the
> skills being taught to students, then most DZ's chopped it up to fit
> their existing programs. Lets not have something like this happen
> on pilot training too.

A better example would be the AFF rating program, which remains consistent throughout the country.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

A better example would be the AFF rating program, which remains consistent throughout the country.

And there isn't any "illegal" ie. non-rated JM's doing AFF in the U.S. either. The USPA has no backbone, they don't enforce their own rules.

Let the USPA advise the FAA on what should be taught to jump pilots and let the FAA be responsible and handle the enforcement. A USPA jump pilot training requirement would be ignored at many DZ's.

Hook

[PhreeZone 15]

I thought the wording in the FAR's was a "nationally reconized organization"... not specifically USPA.

As for the AFF, is a level 6 the same at every DZ? I've seen level 6's include barrel rolls at some DZ's and back flips at others. Some require a low solo before you are cleared and others dont. I think that even AFF is custom at most DZ's.

I don't think the FAA has any understanding of jumping (look at the rigging stuff 90% is related to rounds alone), let alone jump plane piloting, and I thought the USPA had a video out on this topic a few years ago.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[howardwhite 4]

Neither USPA nor FAA is qualified, nor do either want to accept the liability associated with jump pilot qualifications.

Radical suggestion: a national organization/corporation whose charter is to train and certify jump pilots. In return, it would negotiate for better insurance rates.

Pipe dream?

HW

[vidiot 0]

Trying to view this poll from an international perspective... And trying to remember the little english I know while not being perfectly sober.

Over here in Germany, an airplane requires a 'Special Type Certificate' to drop parachutists - A pilot doesn't! I.e. you need a special signoff to mount a swing-up door on a C-182, but it's perfectly legal to jump without a door... The pilot doesn't need any rating and does not wear an emergency parachute...

So yes, a special training and license for our pilots would be good and it should cover a) emergency procedures and B) GPS based wind drift calculation and spotting.

My Logbook

[drenaline 0]

Quote

one was instructed and critiqued by the senior jump pilot in that type

Same here, the ones who are flying us are the instructors of the pilot school (the ones that teach others how to fly planes, sorry for the explanation, am having doubt with my english).

HISPA 21
www.panamafreefall.com

[quade 3]

DD --

I vote for a tail-wheel type signoff. What I think is confusing -most- of the skydivers on this thread is they don't understand how that works.

In this case I assume you mean the already commercially certificated jump-pilot-trainee would receive some basic instruction and then get a logbook endorcement from his first employer's chief pilot who would also have a Certified Flight Instructor rating. This logbook endorcement would then allow the pilot to fly jumpers with the blessing fo the FAA via the authority of the CFI.

The logbook endorcement would also be good at other drop zones, presumably without further instruction, but for all practical purposes would be followed up with additional instruction at each DZ.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[markbaur 0]

Two points:

First, I need to know what curriculum you have in mind before suggesting who the instructor should be.

Second, a tail-wheel sign-off requires a CFI, but jump pilot training is more like aerobatic training, where the instructor need not have any pilot rating at all, as long as the student is rated and current in the aircraft.

Mark

[diverdriver 5]

I agree with you that some jumpers may not understand the certification process for a pilot. They are goin on their perceptions of this and what they've been taught to believe about the FAA/USPA/Home DZ. The poll is not to give me some sort of mandate to run to the FAA and demand regulation. Far from it. It certainly provides a chance for discussion and to possibly educate someone new on a topic they knew very little about.

I like the posts about how the pilot would be taught by the most senior pilot at the DZ. Like that pilot knows anything to begin with. When I was "checking out" in the 206 the "chief pilot" tried to tell me it was ok to run the engine over redline CHT. Huh? What if the DZ is brand new? What if that chief pilot was the only pilot and he quit for any reason and so the DZO (non-pilot in many cases) hires any commercial pilot he can find? What assurance is there to the average USPA member that the pilot at the controls has had the proper instruction not only on how to fly that aircraft but to fly it with jumpers on board? The USPA is there to promote safe skydiving. The ride to altitude is part of that safe skydive and we need to recognize it. Do the FEDs only look at the ski slope angle/mogels/trees? No, they look at the lift too. Not sure if there's a rating or mandatory training for the lift operator.

Some people have posted that they don't want to see their pilot go through anymore red tape than they already do to fly jumpers. Well, I have to say that the "red tape" that we already go through teaches us nothing about how to fly jumpers at all. And it is not the same as doing Chandelles and 8s on Pylons (manuevers required for the commercial license). It teaches you nothing about Part 105 (the regulation for flying jumpers) or what to expect when flying aircraft at their maximum edge (power, weight, minimum fueling, max descents). So how can a jumper be sure that a pilot has received the proper training? Many times in the past people have posted after an accident that took out some jumpers about asking questions of their pilot. Yet, there is no sustained check.

CFIs doing the sign-off. Might be a good thing, yet may seem to be overly burdensome to have to find a CFI with the right to sign off jump pilots. Yet, we make arrangements to get AFF JM ratings. There are certain people who travel around the country who do the testing. Something along those lines might be possible. The suggestion to do it through USPA would be so that we don't have to involve the FAA. Yet there would be record of training like a proficiency card for getting a JM or Tandem rating. Some will view the FAA as the only certifying authority and that's probably good. So where do we land in the middle?

I look at the accident reports over the years and it seems that the pilots just "fell through the cracks" in many cases. There's a report of a pilot who lied about what certificates he had not only to the DZO but the FAA on his medical application. He ran out of fuel and landed short of the airport. Aircraft wrecked, he survived. But what if he had run out of fuel on takeoff? Would he have taken out the whole load? We saw that years ago with a pilot who took off on the 4th load without refueling in a 205. The pilot had been "checked out" that morning and turned loose. And you can't limit your check out to just flying up and down anymore. Jump planes are being ferried around for Mx or Boogies with jumpers on board. You must have a pilot with experience, proper ratings for the flight conditions, and the aircraft has to have the same. A King Air crashing into a lake and a Twin Otter flying into the side of a hill are examples of pilots not understanding or ignoring their personal limitations and the limitations of the aircraft they were ferrying.

The hardest thing you can teach to another pilot is judgement. Having your name in another pilots logbook saying that they meet the minimum requirements for the type of flying they are doing can leave you awake at night. Is that pilot going to go out and do a buzz job so low and close to people (with a full load of jumpers on board) that they hit a mock up with the wingtip of an Otter? I have turned away more pilots than I have turned loose to fly jumpers. Can most operations say the same? I've heard people say that they live out in the stix so they don't have a lot to choose from. What is your life worth? Would it be worth it to these jumpers to have their pilot make a trip to find a jump pilot who could pass on his jump pilot experience? You want make sure that he has the maximum chance to handle issues that will come up in his jump pilot career and they are more than just having the engine fail on take off. You just might prevent that engine from failing with standardized minimum training.

And if you've read my ramblings this far I thank you. I know you will probably bring up these topics while at the bonfire at your DZ. Knowledge is power. Self-policing means that each and everyone of us looks out for the other guy and warns them if they are traveling into dangerous territory. Or at the very least, they ask someone more experienced if what they perceive is really as bad as they think.

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

[weid14 0]

Quote

. Do the FEDs only look at the ski slope angle/mogels/trees? No, they look at the lift too. Not sure if there's a rating or mandatory training for the lift operator.

just a point of clarification -- I believe it is the states that determine what is needed at the ski areas. I know in VT a full on cable and chair inspection is needed on every lift annually. No one else really careas about mountain configuration (once you get past the environmental stuff that is). trying to draw the same analogy to skydiving operations is a stretch. and yes, there is mandatory lift operation training, but it isn't all that (most of the certs are required on inspectors who review the lifts each year, and that is ski area dependant).

The "senior" pilots I have been in contact with at jump operations know their crap. I wouldnt hesitate to have them train others in flying the aircraft, but then again, I've probably been lucky in that regard.

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Quote

. Do the FEDs only look at the ski slope angle/mogels/trees? No, they look at the lift too. Not sure if there's a rating or mandatory training for the lift operator.

just a point of clarification -- I believe it is the states that determine what is needed at the ski areas. I know in VT a full on cable and chair inspection is needed on every lift annually. No one else really careas about mountain configuration (once you get past the environmental stuff that is). trying to draw the same analogy to skydiving operations is a stretch. and yes, there is mandatory lift operation training, but it isn't all that (most of the certs are required on inspectors who review the lifts each year, and that is ski area dependant).

The "senior" pilots I have been in contact with at jump operations know their crap. I wouldnt hesitate to have them train others in flying the aircraft, but then again, I've probably been lucky in that regard.

Ok, maybe bad analogy. And I'm glad that you have good senior pilots. That is how MOST of the industry is. But shouldn't we look out for all of our brothers and sisters? Does a jump plane accident effect the whole industry? How many times have we seen the 205 spinning into the ground video on TV? We need to look out for the little guy who may not have the chance to learn everything they need to survive. Most places do what is necessary and if we made a system along those lines to standardize things it would only be a hastle to the operation that isn't playing by the rules in the first place. Does that make it clearer?

Chris

[weid14 0]

I don't disagree that the new pilots should have the training and the bad ones weeded out. so if USPA did it -- how would you handle non-group member DZ's? I don't think the FAA knows enough to help (they would legistlate training is necessary, but they wouldn't administer it would they?) so really you're left with the local organization (or lack there of). For a big DZ, the senior pilot has a certification for training and signs off the potential newbie pilots in their log book, ok that would work, but what about the small cessna DZ -- who would train them -- shoot some of the big DZ's don't even jump a cessna anymore, how would you cert them?

its a good idea, the implementation is where the thought needs to be.

[Cajones 0]

I've been watching this thread, and there are definitely some good thought being passed. You guys are obviously heads up about this issue. I really have just one query...
Do we really need this extra set of rules? Is there a history of unqualified pilots flying jumpers? As I understand, most insurance carried on jump planes requires pretty good pilots anyhow.
One of the beautiful (and sometimes amazing) things about skydiving is how self-governed we have remained. Tragedy can be the mother of invention, and I don't want to encourage waiting for a tragedy before we enact more rules - I'm just not certain where this thread should steer itself.

The laws of physics are strictly enforced.

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

its a good idea, the implementation is where the thought needs to be.

Very true. I agree. If USPA kept a record of training then they would pick people to implement the chosen program. What would happen at non-GM DZs? Well, that would be a benefit of being at a GM DZ. Maybe the first worth while thing for being a GM DZ. But then again if the program is weak it's worthless.

Here's an example system: A curriculum is set up to train and test pilots on knowledge of FARs and what it will be like as a jump pilot flying at max performance all the time. They will have an understanding of Weight and balance of their aircraft and what paperwork has to be available to be legal. There would be actual flying with the pilot to check for basic aircraft control and procedures and then again with actual jumpers. Numerous power off landings from altitude to the runway since this seems to be an issue with some pilots when they start their final approach with a failed engine at 10,000 feet over the airport and don't make it. They get distracted with other traffic in the area and end up landing off. I don't think some have ever had to physically perform their procedures in front of an evaluator. Two reports from the same DZ talk about pilot misuse of the mixture control that may have led to engine failures. Then we would do many jump runs watching for proper control of the aircraft while jumpers are climbing out. Airspeed control in different configurations. I tell ya, I watch a pilot's check out very closely during the initial training because if they can't control altitude and airspeed without jumpers on board then how can they be expected to do that during climbout.

The evaluator could be someone that travels to the DZ for training or the pilot could have to seek him out. Not sure which would be best right now. We don't have to reinvent the wheel when talking about standardized pilot training. Look at what is being done now for sign offs on retractable gear aircraft and aircraft with engines greater than 200 HP. We travel to the instructor or find one locally to get these signoffs. Same for tail draggers. We find a pilot who can sign it off. If you want to fly aircraft from water then you have to get a special certificate (sea plane rating). USPA has training courses where they do a class at a particular DZ at a certain time for AFF JMs/coaches/BICs. Tandems are done somewhat differently as you can find a Tandem Examiner anytime and arrange training and certification. Same for Riggers. Set up a time for exam with the DPRE.

Will we see any new certification for jump pilots by the FAA or USPA soon? No. Do I have the power to make these things happen? No. Do we as a group have the power to ensure that the operations we jump at do what is necessary to have well trained jump pilots? YES!

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

[AggieDave 6]

What is the ratio of accidents attributed to inexperienced pilots as opposed to an experienced pilot that should have known better. (like what happed at a major Texas DZ a year or so ago)

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

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

I've been watching this thread, and there are definitely some good thought being passed. You guys are obviously heads up about this issue. I really have just one query...

Do we really need this extra set of rules? Is there a history of unqualified pilots flying jumpers? As I understand, most insurance carried on jump planes requires pretty good pilots anyhow.

One of the beautiful (and sometimes amazing) things about skydiving is how self-governed we have remained. Tragedy can be the mother of invention, and I don't want to encourage waiting for a tragedy before we enact more rules - I'm just not certain where this thread should steer itself.

Cajones, that is part of why I do this once in awhile. We seem to let the subject drift until there is a tragedy. I started doing this thread on Rec.skydiving in January 1999. I said the industry was headed for trouble if we didn't take heed. 1999 turned out to be one of the worst jump plane accident years on record. We had many fatal accidents.

According to the USPA and FAAs numbers, the fleet of aircraft flying jumpers logs just over 100,000 hours per year. The NTSB breaks down statistics per 100K hours of flying. Right now, according to that number we are TWICE as bad as general aviation. We have about 12 accidents per year with jump planes. The record for all of general aviation is 6 accidents per 100K hours of flying. To me, that is an abismal record. And, just look at the accidents I have listed on my site. These accidents are so preventable. So how are we going to prevent future accidents? There is currently no standard. Each operation is on their own to come up with a plan. Most do fine. Some, are ticking time bombs. You know what I'm talking about. Somehow they get away with stuff time after time, until, that one time. Then there is a smoking whole in the ground with your friends strewn about.

USPA is working on updating how much flying is done. The statistic may not be as bad as it sounds now. If the fleet does 200K hours of flying then our record would be inline with the rest of GA. But again, I would say this is too high. Our rate should be better than that and more inline with charter operations. We are flying with Commercial pilots. Professionals. We should receive service that is inline with that rating.

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

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

What is the ratio of accidents attributed to inexperienced pilots as opposed to an experienced pilot that should have known better. (like what happed at a major Texas DZ a year or so ago)

Not sure how you want me to break that down. Not sure if I can either. But take a read HERE. You can see for yourself what is going on with jump planes.

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

[AggieDave 6]

My point was, how much of the problem is pilots who know better being stupid, which more regulation won't necissarily help or just inexperienced pilots?

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

[weid14 0]

Quote

My point was, how much of the problem is pilots who know better being stupid, which more regulation won't necissarily help or just inexperienced pilots?

I think it lies in both areanas. there are experience pilots out there who have the "top-gun" attitude (witness the wing strike on the mock up a few years ago). and the low time pilots who screw up and crap happens.

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

My point was, how much of the problem is pilots who know better being stupid, which more regulation won't necissarily help or just inexperienced pilots?

Good question. Not sure that can be answered. Regulation for regulation's sake is not helpful. I think we all know that. But, you can't jump out of an aircraft without having logged (in a logbook and signed off by your JM) your training jumps. So why should the pilot flying you to jump altitude be any different?

Seriously, take a read through some of these reports. Just read the front page with the cause listed. If it is a preliminary or factual report it won't have a cause listed. But you can get an idea of what is going on.

Chris

[MarkM 0]

One problem I can see with rating pilots is that DZs themselves would be resistant to it.

If I'm a small DZ owner and I have 3 people I regularly use as pilots getting each of those pilots rated needs to be easy. It also needs to be a quick process, what if one of my pilots quits and I need a replacement within a week? One of my other pilots knows someone who can fill in, how fast can I get him rated? Can I do it at the DZ, or is he supposed to travel somewhere for it?

I think everyone in the sport is for more safety, but at the same time no one wants that safety to interrupt the flow of business.

I don't think you can use the AFFI model for this either. For one, you don't need AFF instructors to run a DZ. You can use SL jumpmasters, tandem masters or even just not send students up. If your AFFI walks off the DZ you can still send up planes without students. If your rated pilot leaves your planes won't be going anywhere until you find a replacement.

I think it's a good idea, but it may have to be implemented fairly loosely.