C-182 Non-Fatal Zephyrhills, FL 11-25-2012

[diverdriver 5]

IDENTIFICATION Regis#: 5795B Make/Model: C182 Description: 182, Skylane Date: 11/25/2012 Time: 2100

Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N Damage: None

LOCATION City: ZEPHYRHILLS State: FL Country: US

DESCRIPTION AIRCRAFT FORCE LANDED IN A FIELD, NEAR ZEPHYRHILLS, FL

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0 # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk: # Pass: 2 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk: # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

OTHER DATA Activity: Unknown Phase: Landing Operation: OTHER

FAA FSDO: TAMPA, FL (SO35) Entry date: 11/26/2012

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

[tkhayes 348]

BTW, it was not a skydiving flight.

[CarpeDiem3 0]

But it WAS a Skydive City aircraft.
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=5795B

So, TK, tell us what happened.

[theonlyski 8]

Quote

But it WAS a Skydive City aircraft.
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=5795B

So, TK, tell us what happened.

Sounds like it landed in a field without incident.

TK said it had nothing to do with skydiving, so it really is irrelevant here.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[normiss 803]

I'm reminded of standing on the taxiway with you, waiting for a certain someone to return with the Cessna....and your cussing that he was going to run out of fuel!




Is this thread STILL here???

[CarpeDiem3 0]

Quote

Sounds like it landed in a field without incident.

Aren't you curious to know WHY it landed in a field?

Quote

TK said it had nothing to do with skydiving, so it really is irrelevant here.

Um, not exactly. He said it wasn't a skydiving flight, which I take to mean that there were no jumpers aboard. Thank goodness for that.

However, that doesn't mean that it has no ramifications for the jump operations. It might be a plane that is used to carry jumpers at other times. And depending upon the cause of the forced landing, it may have a bearing upon aircraft maintenance or pilot judgement.

For example, if a pilot runs out of fuel in-flight due to forgetting to fill-up, wouldn't that make you less comfortable with riding that pilot's plane to altitude again in the future?

So, the jumpers who ride in that plane deserve to know what happened.

[normiss 803]

There were no jumpers aboard.
NOT a skydiving incident.

[roostnureye 2]

Quote

There were no jumpers aboard.
NOT a skydiving incident.

yes but this plane is used for skydiving activities, specifically swooping.

Flock University FWC / ZFlock
B.A.S.E. 1580
Aussie BASE 121

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

There were no jumpers aboard.
NOT a skydiving incident.

yes but this plane is used for skydiving activities, specifically swooping.

Ive seen a couple of planes swoop the pond, it's pretty cool

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

There were no jumpers aboard.
NOT a skydiving incident.

When a jump plane has a malfunction, even when not being used to drop jumpers, it matters because it could have been a random happenstance that the problem occurred while not dropping jumpers. Or it was significant pilot error, which means a lot if it was a jump pilot. Or it was random, which doesn't matter much to us. Two out of three matter to the skydiving community.

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

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

There were no jumpers aboard.
NOT a skydiving incident.

Owned by a DZ. Operated by employees of the DZ? Then it's skydiving related. It's the true risk management and threat to a jump pilot. I'm surprised this was moved. This type accident/report has always been left in Incidents. Phreezone? Billvon? Any info? Is this a shift in policy?

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

[normiss 803]

I understand the perspective, but haven't we moved or removed threads in the past that weren't deemed as an actual skydiving related incident?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

I understand the perspective, but haven't we moved or removed threads in the past that weren't deemed as an actual skydiving related incident?

Maybe, but there are non-jump related Incidents that jump planes were involved in that stayed in incidents.

THIS is one. There are a lot of others.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[normiss 803]

I sit corrected.

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

I sit corrected.

Ok if the plane was loaned to non DZ pilot for personal flight this could or could not be skydiving related.

The aircraft is a 182. Straight 182 from 1956. These older planes have a much higher unusable fuel per tank than most pilots are used to. An uninformed pilot "just hopping in" could very well think they have enough for a short hop when they don't. Was this to go up and look for cutaway gear? TK?

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

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

The aircraft is a 182. Straight 182 from 1956. These older planes have a much higher unusable fuel per tank than most pilots are used to.

How much is that? 5 gal per side?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Quote

The aircraft is a 182. Straight 182 from 1956. These older planes have a much higher unusable fuel per tank than most pilots are used to.

How much is that? 5 gal per side?

That's correct. And that's assuming the old rubber bladder type tanks don't have wrinkles in them.

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

[drjump 0]

5 gallons/side unusable in manauvering flight. 3 gallons/side in straight and level flight. This from a 1957 Cessna manual.

[Ron 10]

Quote

There were no jumpers aboard.
NOT a skydiving incident.

It had a problem, there are three major possible causes:

1. Pilot error
2. Lack of MX
3. Something random and uncontrollable.

Since it IS a jump plane that is being used to fly jumpers, one that you might fly in some day or with that pilot..... Wouldn't it be nice to know if it was pilot error or lack of MX?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[normiss 803]

It most certainly would, if any of those prerequisites existed.
I am unaware if any do at this time.


Someone even asked me about the timing of this A/C 'incident' with the timing of the Lake Wales A/C 'incident'.

I can only hope not....jebus people.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

There were no jumpers aboard.
NOT a skydiving incident.

It had a problem, there are three major possible causes:

1. Pilot error
2. Lack of MX
3. Something random and uncontrollable.

Since it IS a jump plane that is being used to fly jumpers, one that you might fly in some day or with that pilot..... Wouldn't it be nice to know if it was pilot error or lack of MX?

Indeed it would.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[WGore 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The aircraft is a 182. Straight 182 from 1956. These older planes have a much higher unusable fuel per tank than most pilots are used to.

How much is that? 5 gal per side?

That's correct. And that's assuming the old rubber bladder type tanks don't have wrinkles in them.

I believe the 56' model unusable is 2.5 gal. It went to 5 in 57'.

GUNFIRE, The sound of Freedom!

[fly4jumps 0]

Incident - An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operations.

So yes, both were "incidents" as long as this plane wasn't damaged. In this case, shouldn't we be applauding the pilot for surviving?? we don't actually do anything but gossip here unproductively, do we? All you commenters are "experienced" pilots and skydivers, no? Then you want to know that it wasn't pilot error so what, you won't fly with that pilot anymore? Lets be real, how many jumpers actually go and interview pilots before getting aboard for a jump?

Even after we determine that if this was pilot error (NTSB says all 2/3 incidents are pilot error), then what? Anyone want to suggest piloting or maintenance techniques that pilots mechanics or jumpers want to try to prevent this from happening with jumpers aboard?

Seems we pilots can do a few things...

-know the weather and how its changing, stick fuel tanks, know the a/c systems better, good non-rushed preflights, stay calm when stuff does go wrong, know what to do when something goes wrong, PRACTICE power OFF approaches, never give up power off glide distance to somewhere which allows for a full stop landing or successful crash, learn from fu*k ups so you don't do that again!

Ok girls, resume non-productive, narcissistic gossiping procedures