Considerations for jumping at Lodi

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

I AM concerned with all the reports on maintenance violations.

That's the invisible stuff that can kill you. At my DZ, the children of the original owners ride their planes. Also, the chief pilot is also in charge of maintenance and takes care of those planes like his own babies. In the past, I've seen him make many unpopular judgement calls in the interest of safety. I wish every DZ was like that.

Quote

I'm also DEEPLY concerned with the fact that that nobody wears readily available seatbelts on takeoff.

It must be cool to die for no reason. There's a very clear federal law stating that you wear those seatbelts on takeoff. No good reason not to.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm planning a trip to California including stopping at Lodi. I've jumped at dropzones in Canada and Australia, so I have some experience traveling. For jumping at Lodi, there were a couple of things I thought I should pay attention to. 1) Increased number of canopies during landing 2) Aircraft maintenance.

I understand there is a lot of controversy about number 2), however as someone who hasn't been there before any accounts of recent information would be helpful. For 1), is the landing area a good size? I think I would be doing most jumping mid-week so maybe not so busy.

There's no controversy about the FAA violations. The operation has been fined twice for blatant failures to perform mandatory work on aircraft. If I'm getting the story right, one of the fines was for continuing to fly the plane after being spanked and told not to fly it any more until the required work was performed.

In my opinion, anyone who jumps at Lodi is supporting behavior that can and eventually will have the FAA come down on the sport in ways that will result in vastly more expensive aircraft maintenance rules (in the US, skydiving currently operates under the very least stringent maintenance requirements) and those dramatic cost increases will by necessity be passed on to us. Imagine what the price of jump tickets doubling will do to your jumping habits.

But hey, a USPA Director jumps there so it must be ok, huh?

What he said, and also anything davelepka has said in this thread. I don't now if you've looked much at Davis, but if you want to skydive in that area then for me they are my choice hands down based on everything that is up for 'debate' about Lodi (although I agree with what has been said-- I don't know why there is even debate over FAA fines and violations). If you're willing to travel a little away from the valley, then check out Byron and Hollister. Seriously, if you have to start a thread to ask if you should consider jumping at Lodi for your trip, isn't that a red flag right off the bat? There are plenty of other DZ's in the area that have all their i's dotted and t's crossed. Just my .02, but as others have said you're an adult and can jump wherever you want at the end of the day.

Enjoy your travels!

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[DrizZ 0]

It's funny, I actually think Lodi's landing area is relatively large (at least average). I mean, it's not Eloy or the Farm, but there's plenty of space! I did grow up at a DZ with a small, terrible landing area though. It makes even the most experienced skydivers cringe if they're on anything remotely high performance.

I just love that 'tip' as last time I was there, there was a small corner of the whiteboard with a small section called 'info' or something with only that statement.

[Zymurdoo 0]

Quote

I did grow up at a DZ with a small, terrible landing area though. It makes even the most experienced skydivers cringe if they're on anything remotely high performance.

Hey be nice. Just because our LZ is surrounded by barbed wire, an alligator infested moat and lava pits, doesn't mean it's "terrible". Small on the other hand, I'll give you. But we do build accurate skydivers.

Blue Skies, Soft Docks and Happy Landings!
CWR #23
(It's called CRW, add an e if you like, but I ain't calling it CFS. FU FAI!)

[aeroflyer 0]

This thread has been very informative and given me enough information to make my own decision on jumping there. I don't like that people don't wear seatbelts on takeoff (regardless of the type, having them on is better than not), I've also jumped at places where nobody make an effort to put on seatbelts (I'd say I wear them more than 90% of the time now, I'm trying for 100, but sometimes they're jammed under the seat etc). I will be checking out Davis for sure and at least stopping to see Lodi, and will make a decision about jumping there at that time. Thanks for the luck on my trip and I'm sure it will be great

[virgin-burner 1]

at least in switzerland, and the netherlands (for all i know), no-one cares for seatbelts; and even if they did, there are none existent..

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

at least in switzerland, and the netherlands (for all i know), no-one cares for seatbelts; and even if they did, there are none existent..

Apparently DZ's in the Netherlands haven't learned from others' mistakes.

Sport death, my man.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[davelepka 4]

Quote

at least stopping to see Lodi, and will make a decision about jumping there at that time

Based on what? The DZO has a documented history of not properly maintaining his aircraft to such an extent that some have fallen out of the sky and that the FAA has levied close to $1million in fines.

One of the problem areas was an inspection of the airframe where the wing attached to the fuselage. What do you think a cracked bulkhead looks like from the outside of the plane? Do you think it's an outwardly visible problem, where you can asses the severity of the crack, and choose to stop flying on that plane when it gets too bad? The truth is that nobody would see the crack forming, and the only way it would show itself is when the wing seperates from the fuselage.

How about the over life-limit control cables. These don't run outside the plane, to where you can see them before boarding each time. These cables run through the hidden tunnels and channels in the airframe, the only outward indication you would have that there is a problem is when a cable snaps. Up until that point, it's busines as usual, with full, unrestricted control of the aircraft.

Going there to 'take a look' will get you nowehere closer to knowing the status of the aircraft. The vast majority of aricraft problems are undectible to the outside observer until there is a failure.

I'm amamzed that people keep going there, and that the staff/fun jumpers didn't beat the shit out of Bill when the lid came off this can of worms. I, for one, would be fucking pissed if I found out my DZO was sending me up in an airplane they knew was nowhere near properly maintained. Bill got lucky, and had no way of knowing that those ignored maintenance items weren't going to manifest themselves in an outright failure.

Let's remember the failure of the drive splines on the fuel pump in that King Air incident up in Pitt Meadows. Also one of Bill's planes on a 'Bill approved' MX plans, I'm sure the plane made full power and ran like a top on the previous load. It was probably 100% on the run-up and take off on the incident load, everything was just fine - and then it wasn't. That's the nature of these types of failures, and the very reason that mandatory inspections and life-limits exist on certain components, they're designed to fix the problem before it becomes a problem.

For the life of me I just can't fathom why anyone would put themselves at risk like that, and why they would continue to patronize a business that has no concern for their personal safety. It's just stupid.

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Quote

at least stopping to see Lodi, and will make a decision about jumping there at that time

Based on what? The DZO has a documented history of not properly maintaining his aircraft to such an extent that some have fallen out of the sky and that the FAA has levied close to $1million in fines.

One of the problem areas was an inspection of the airframe where the wing attached to the fuselage. What do you think a cracked bulkhead looks like from the outside of the plane? Do you think it's an outwardly visible problem, where you can asses the severity of the crack, and choose to stop flying on that plane when it gets too bad? The truth is that nobody would see the crack forming, and the only way it would show itself is when the wing seperates from the fuselage.

How about the over life-limit control cables. These don't run outside the plane, to where you can see them before boarding each time. These cables run through the hidden tunnels and channels in the airframe, the only outward indication you would have that there is a problem is when a cable snaps. Up until that point, it's busines as usual, with full, unrestricted control of the aircraft.

Going there to 'take a look' will get you nowehere closer to knowing the status of the aircraft. The vast majority of aricraft problems are undectible to the outside observer until there is a failure.

I'm amamzed that people keep going there, and that the staff/fun jumpers didn't beat the shit out of Bill when the lid came off this can of worms. I, for one, would be fucking pissed if I found out my DZO was sending me up in an airplane they knew was nowhere near properly maintained. Bill got lucky, and had no way of knowing that those ignored maintenance items weren't going to manifest themselves in an outright failure.

Let's remember the failure of the drive splines on the fuel pump in that King Air incident up in Pitt Meadows. Also one of Bill's planes on a 'Bill approved' MX plans, I'm sure the plane made full power and ran like a top on the previous load. It was probably 100% on the run-up and take off on the incident load, everything was just fine - and then it wasn't. That's the nature of these types of failures, and the very reason that mandatory inspections and life-limits exist on certain components, they're designed to fix the problem before it becomes a problem.

For the life of me I just can't fathom why anyone would put themselves at risk like that, and why they would continue to patronize a business that has no concern for their personal safety. It's just stupid.

+1

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[diablopilot 2]

[sarcasm on]But they have $15 jumps man.....[sarcasm off]


Sheep. The lot of them.

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

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

[sarcasm on]But they have $15 jumps man.....[sarcasm off]


Sheep. The lot of them.

Diablo speaketh truth. Ug.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

[sarcasm on]But they have $15 jumps man.....[sarcasm off]


Sheep. The lot of them.

I hate it when you sugar coat things.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[drewcarp 0]

+1

If you want to take a risk at least make it a fun one, riding up in airplane you know is probably way over do on MX isn't any fun. And dying in an airplane you knew wasn't maintained, even to the lowest FAA standard, is really dumb. No seatbelts, fucking seriously? Wow, what cowboys, impressive.

Try out a wing suit or do some low pulls if you want to get dangerous. Much more badass and fun than giving money to a guy who deliberately puts your life at risk just so he can earn a few more $$'s. That should really piss most people off, can't understand why it wouldn't.

[DrizZ 0]

You bet your ass we do! It's not meant as an insult, but I LOVE meeting people all over the country that have jumped there... once ;) Can't wait to jump there again this winter. It should be a fun challenge of the accuracy skills Karl taught me.

[Dutton 0]

Food for thought. I flew for a part 135 operator that operated caravans, beech 99's and a twin otter. They flew regional cargo routes for a major overnight shipping company that spared no expense on maintanence, and was the physical owner of the caravan fleet. One year after I left, a friend of mine had an engine failure climbing through 7,500 feet when his compressor turbine came apart. That is a problem when you are flying a caravan. It was eventually found that the once per 50 hour compressor washes weren't enough to prevent corrosion. Nearly the whole fleet had the same wear...
So don't gloat over your DZ's supposed "stringent" mx standards, or feel any better that your DZ's aircraft are flown under part 135 (cough). Aviation is still inherently dangerous. Shit happens.
Be more concerned with how your pilot operates the airplane. Does he take care of it, or beat it up? Does he fly smoothly like his grandma is riding along, or does he jerk it around because he doesn't like flying skydivers, is bored and can't wait to work for Southwest... These are old airplanes and they are just waiting to fall apart.

[Elite_Marksman 0]

While shit does certainly happen when it comes to aircraft, shit happens more often to A/C that aren't properly maintained...

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Food for thought. I flew for a part 135 operator that operated caravans, beech 99's and a twin otter. They flew regional cargo routes for a major overnight shipping company that spared no expense on maintanence, and was the physical owner of the caravan fleet. One year after I left, a friend of mine had an engine failure climbing through 7,500 feet when his compressor turbine came apart. That is a problem when you are flying a caravan. It was eventually found that the once per 50 hour compressor washes weren't enough to prevent corrosion. Nearly the whole fleet had the same wear...
So don't gloat over your DZ's supposed "stringent" mx standards, or feel any better that your DZ's aircraft are flown under part 135 (cough). Aviation is still inherently dangerous. Shit happens.
Be more concerned with how your pilot operates the airplane. Does he take care of it, or beat it up? Does he fly smoothly like his grandma is riding along, or does he jerk it around because he doesn't like flying skydivers, is bored and can't wait to work for Southwest... These are old airplanes and they are just waiting to fall apart.

Sorry, but that's lame. That's like saying you should be more concerned about tying your shoelace too aggressively when the sole is about to fall off.

A plane that is properly maintained will not routinely experience mechanical or structural failure if flown within its appropriate limits. Just because it does sometimes happen doesn't make it a good analogy for saying that poor maintenance and gentle flying is somehow better than proper maintenance and something other than babying the bird like your grandma.

Your friend's mechanical failure had nothing to do with "jerking" the plane around. Using that scenario as an example of pilot behavior over maintenance as a means of mechanical security is nothing short of absurd.

A properly maintained aircraft can fail when taken outside its operating limits as readily as a poorly maintained one. A poorly maintained aircraft can and will fail regardless of how gently it is flown.

Safety in aviation is achieved by maintaining aircraft properly AND flying them as they were designed to be flown.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[totter 2]

If you don't mind answering; "Where are these aircraft operated?"

I don't need a specific DZ, just a geographic location will do.

[Dutton 0]

I responded in detail to you via PM. For anyone else curious, it was the Norhteast US.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

While shit does certainly happen when it comes to aircraft, shit happens more often to A/C that aren't properly maintained...

Took the words right out of my mouth!

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)