FAA to fine Lodi $664,000

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Quote

This is not about United, American or some other airline. This is about a Drop Zone operation that flies skydivers.

I was drawing the comparison because a fine that high is typical of a scheduled airline with much higher revenues than your typical weekend DZO. A fine this high is closer to a death blow, not a penalty.

Quote

If you want to talk about what is going on in other fields of aviation go to a board that is set up for that purpose.

You really should consider decaf.

The FAA does not have a different pay fee scale to differentiate a major airline from a joe shmo running his cessna to take people up for city skyline tours. When you take somebody up for hire, no matter how big or small, you are subject to the SAME rules and regs; SAME fines. Lives on a mom and pop shop plane are not less valuable than those on a major airline carrier.

The mom and pop shop operator is WELL aware of the risks if they choose to have a pair of balls big enough to test the waters with breaking FAA rules/regs. This is no surprise. Trust me.

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

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

D-1?...really?

Never noticed that on his posts. Pretty disrespectful.

skydives - you really ought to change that.

Can you "prove" it isn't Lew? He might just be fuckin with us pups!

[headoverheels 333]

Thanks for the references, Jan.

Those single point anchor seat belts are next to worthless, at least for keeping the people in front from being crushed by the others in the event of rapid deceleration in a crash.

[billvon 3,070]

>Those single point anchor seat belts are next to worthless, at least for
>keeping the people in front from being crushed by the others in the event
>of rapid deceleration in a crash.

That's all I ever thought jump aircraft seat belts were for. They're not to protect _you._

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

>Those single point anchor seat belts are next to worthless, at least for
>keeping the people in front from being crushed by the others in the event
>of rapid deceleration in a crash.

That's all I ever thought jump aircraft seat belts were for. They're not to protect _you._

Exactly. They just keep you from flying into the back of the cockpit wall and whoever's sitting back there. The Perris Otter crash in the early 90's is a prime example.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[wmw999 2,534]

One thing people can do to at least alleviate the problem is not to leave them as loose as possible. At least that way you won't go quite as far before hitting the end of the seat belt.

Not much help if the single point fails, but it keeps everyone in a smaller "single place."

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

One thing people can do to at least alleviate the problem is not to leave them as loose as possible. At least that way you won't go quite as far before hitting the end of the seat belt.

I've also noticed something that goes along with that comment. It seems that in Otters when we're facing the rear on those foam straddle benches, we're always reaching behind us to get a seat belt. In other words, there's going to be a huge whiplash effect if we're ever actually in a crash, as we get snapped to the end of that seatbelt in the other direction. It seems like we ought to be reaching towards the rear of the plane to get a belt, so that they're already under tension if a crash occurs.

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

One thing people can do to at least alleviate the problem is not to leave them as loose as possible. At least that way you won't go quite as far before hitting the end of the seat belt.

I've also noticed something that goes along with that comment. It seems that in Otters when we're facing the rear, we're always reaching behind us to get a seat belt. In other words, there's going to be a huge whiplash effect if we're ever actually in a crash, as we get snapped to the end of that seatbelt in the other direction. It seems like we ought to be reaching towards the rear of the plane to get a belt, so that they're already under tension if a crash occurs.

Yeah, it's why I prefer Otters with the benches along the sides and you sit in two columns facing each other. You're pretty much assured of having seat belts that actually restrain you. There have been times in Otters where I sat on the floor and couldn't find a seat belt.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[normiss 851]

God I hate those seats.
Forced angle seating, unable to sufficiently lighten tandem straps, seat belts getting stuck behind the seat tubing, pain in the ass to stow the fold down seats in the rear....oh, I hate those seats.

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

God I hate those seats.
Forced angle seating, unable to sufficiently lighten tandem straps, seat belts getting stuck behind the seat tubing, pain in the ass to stow the fold down seats in the rear....oh, I hate those seats.

I do too, dude... but I do feel safer in them. What else can the DZs do? Improve the seat belt layouts for floor seating...

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[headoverheels 333]

Quote

God I hate those seats.
Forced angle seating, unable to sufficiently lighten tandem straps, seat belts getting stuck behind the seat tubing, pain in the ass to stow the fold down seats in the rear....oh, I hate those seats.

Not as good for tandem setup, but the starboard seats can be easily raised when taking out a larger formation.

The single point belts, run through the harness, just allow too much forward movement, at least a couple of feet. For a closely packed aircraft, the people in front will still be pressed by the weight of many. Not as bad as no belts, but still enough to crush them.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

God I hate those seats.
Forced angle seating, unable to sufficiently lighten tandem straps, seat belts getting stuck behind the seat tubing, pain in the ass to stow the fold down seats in the rear....oh, I hate those seats.

Poor Baby. Try running three tandems at a time out of a 205 for a season or three and then see how you like the Otter seats.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

God I hate those seats.
Forced angle seating, unable to sufficiently lighten tandem straps, seat belts getting stuck behind the seat tubing, pain in the ass to stow the fold down seats in the rear....oh, I hate those seats.

Poor Baby. Try running three tandems at a time out of a 205 for a season or three and then see how you like the Otter seats.

That's a job. You're getting paid to do unpleasant things. If that wasn't the case you'd be paying the DZO for the privilege of introducing new people to the sport of skydiving.

Fun jumping is a mid-priced hobby. You expect to be treated like a customer not cargo.

[normiss 851]

Sorry, I can only do one at a time.


I've worked out of worse aircraft as well, but we were discussing the Otter weren't we??

[rmsmith 1]

Quote

Those single point anchor seat belts are next to worthless, at least for keeping the people in front from being crushed by the others in the event of rapid deceleration in a crash.

I always thought of them as a pilot's aid to keep the weight and balance moment from shifting during an uncontrolled stall event.

FWIW, the jumper's container/harness is only designed for strength along the chord of the main lift and leg straps; the rest of the harness is constructed of lighter materials.

[SkydiveJack 1]

Quote

Quote

>Those single point anchor seat belts are next to worthless, at least for
>keeping the people in front from being crushed by the others in the event
>of rapid deceleration in a crash.

That's all I ever thought jump aircraft seat belts were for. They're not to protect _you._

Exactly. They just keep you from flying into the back of the cockpit wall and whoever's sitting back there. The Perris Otter crash in the early 90's is a prime example.

I am going from memory here (a dangerous thing for me sometimes). I believe that in the Perris Twin Otter crash, no one was wearing a seat belt. The only people who survived were the ones at the back of the aircraft who ended up on top of the pile and they had some really bad injuries. In fact that was the crash that caused the big push in the USA for jumpers to wear seatbelts. The opinion of the investigators at the time was that seatbelt use would have saved more lives.

And the NTSB report from the Missouri Twin Otter crash (see Jan's earlier post with attachments) mentions seatbelts, which were in use, with aiding in the survival of two of the jumpers.

The bottom line is that we as individual jumpers need to make smart decisions about our safety. And jump plane owners need to maintain their aircraft in a safe, airworthy condition. There are no guarantees in life but we can sure reduce the chances of an accident; and injuries during one, by following these steps.

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

Quote

Those single point anchor seat belts are next to worthless, at least for keeping the people in front from being crushed by the others in the event of rapid deceleration in a crash.

I always thought of them as a pilot's aid to keep the weight and balance moment from shifting during an uncontrolled stall event.

FWIW, the jumper's container/harness is only designed for strength along the chord of the main lift and leg straps; the rest of the harness is constructed of lighter materials.

...................................................................

while they may not be designed for crash restraint, FAA tests prove that most parachute harnesses do a pretty good job of crash restraint, provided they are anchored to the airframe by single point restraints.

Most parachute harness materials are still stronger than required by TSO-C22 for seatbelts.
For example, TSO C22 requires a minimum breaking strength of under 2,000 pounds, while the weakest webbing used in harness construction is Type 17 webbing - rated for 2,500 pounds - one inch wide, sometimes used for chest straps.
Type 8 webbing - rated for 4,000 pounds - is often used for back straps, lateral straps and chest straps.

The weakest point - in most skydiving harnesses is the 500 pound buckle holding chest straps, but few skydivers are dumb enough to thread seatbelts through chest straps.
As for your claim that harnesses are not strong enough, go look at the FAA's report on crash test tests of (Hooker's) single point seat-belts, done in 1997 and published in 1998. I inspected all those harnesses - after the crash sled tests - and concluded that most of the occupants would be alive today.

I also learned - the hard way - that flopping, unrestrained during a forced landing is one of the dumber things I ever did. I started out with my back to the pilot's seat and quickly found myself near the bottom of a pile of rapidly decelerating passengers. When the plane swapped ends and started decelerating towards the tail, I ended up on the top of the "dog pile."
My body was one huge bruise, from my concussed brain, all the way down to bruised calf muscles. In between I suffered a broken nose and a herniated spinal disc. It was eight months before my dis-located shoulder healed enough to resume tandem skydiving.
Sadly, the guy who ended up on the bottom of the "dog pile" suffered such massive brain injuries that he will never be able to live alone!

You don't have to beat me twice to drive home a lesson. If anyone ever tells me to fly in another airplane without proper seat-belts, I will quietly walk away, before take-off!

Rob Warner
FAA Master Rigger
survivor of the 2008 King Air crash in Pitt Meadows

[billvon 3,070]

After experiencing both, I much prefer the benches. Seems safer as well, both for weight and balance and for ability to restrain people during a crash.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

After experiencing both, I much prefer the benches. Seems safer as well, both for weight and balance and for ability to restrain people during a crash.

Doesn't matter so much if nobody has to wear a seat belt on the plane.

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

[JohnMitchell 16]

Quote

At this point it is just a proposed fine.
These things are typically negotiated downwards. Bill has good lawyers. It will probably cost him 50K in fines and 150K in attorneys fees

Well, I hope he can, but I also hope he starts doing the required maintenance on his A/C. I haven't jumped with him in years, but I'd like to visit Lodi someday. But I sure don't want the plane to break on the way to altitude.

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Thanks for the references, Jan.

Those single point anchor seat belts are next to worthless, at least for keeping the people in front from being crushed by the others in the event of rapid deceleration in a crash.

If that single point is hooked into the harness, it becomes a 5 point restraint....

But, either way, it stops/"slows" the rapid center of gravity change, (hopefully giving the pilot an extra moment to gain control) and , as sick as it sounds, keeps us from killing each other in a dog pile, (see Perris crash comment)

[JohnMitchell 16]

Quote

The single point belts, run through the harness, just allow too much forward movement, at least a couple of feet. For a closely packed aircraft, the people in front will still be pressed by the weight of many. Not as bad as no belts, but still enough to crush them.

When I wear those, I try to sit next to the belt and put it around me, like any other seat belt. Not ideal, but it seem more restraining than putting it thru my harness. Another thing to remember is that the seat belt need to go around the hips, not over the waist, or you're at risk of breaking your back in a crash.

[JohnMitchell 16]

I'm with Bill. I like the Otter bench seats the best.
I just wish people wouldn't crush the seatbelt hardware when they fold up the seats.

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

The single point belts, run through the harness, just allow too much forward movement, at least a couple of feet. For a closely packed aircraft, the people in front will still be pressed by the weight of many. Not as bad as no belts, but still enough to crush them.

When I wear those, I try to sit next to the belt and put it around me, like any other seat belt. Not ideal, but it seem more restraining than putting it thru my harness. Another thing to remember is that the seat belt need to go around the hips, not over the waist, or you're at risk of breaking your back in a crash.

BUT,Then in the event of an actual crash, those other floating in their belts bodies, will surely kill you....eveen in a front wheel broke of crash,(tricycle landing gear) you will be terminally injured more than likely! far too much weight for any human to take on their mid section....

[skyrider 0]

I will be the first to scream about bad maintance...

BUT, (I have heard) Bill Dauce is "ON" almost every flight that takes off from his DZ , (building numbers), was he trying to kill himself by playing ruolette? (Sp?) a little hard to believe..

I wish Bill , or his rep, would post to this thread...surely there is MUCH more to the story!

I just remember the Perris crash, (I was working there when it happened) people blamed the DZ owner.........., HUH???? His own Daughter was on those planes daily....I doubt Ben would take a chance with her life!

We may be over reacting to this fine by the FAA....