Recommended Posts
jsreznor 0
QuoteI find it incredible that someone like Billy Richards ( wonder who called the newspaper!) can try to really screw up skydiving for a lot of people with half truths and innuendos and a few people jump on his cause without really thinking about the real reasons for the strife.
Why would any skydiver try to defend his actions? Are you really serious or as I said before, just trying to stir up a little more drama?
Do you actually know Billy? It's about the money.
There's a reason why he owns three airports, 4 otters, a 182, a caravan, a porter, a stunt biplane, three helicopters, etc., and it's not because he inherited them.
danornan 79
QuoteQuoteI find it incredible that someone like Billy Richards ( wonder who called the newspaper!) can try to really screw up skydiving for a lot of people with half truths and innuendos and a few people jump on his cause without really thinking about the real reasons for the strife.
Why would any skydiver try to defend his actions? Are you really serious or as I said before, just trying to stir up a little more drama?
Do you actually know Billy? It's about the money.
There's a reason why he owns three airports, 4 otters, a 182, a caravan, a porter, a stunt biplane, three helicopters, etc., and it's not because he inherited them.
if it's all about the money, then why are skydivers defending him?
Dano
mnealtx 0
Quoteif it's all about the money, then why are skydivers defending him?
Might want to disconnect the emotions and check your assumptions at the door, chief - the absence of enthusiastic support for every single thing that TK has done doesn't equal 'defending Billy'.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
jsreznor 0
It's not ALL about the money. With the exception of the biplane and the camera heli, we get to jump out of all his aircraft and land at his airports.
As a jumper, I'm not involved in this owner/operator drama. I just smile, get on a load, and never fly over Billy's house.
As a jumper, I'm not involved in this owner/operator drama. I just smile, get on a load, and never fly over Billy's house.
QuoteQuoteQuote
Perhaps something will rise from the ashes of this mess?
Nice, subtle reference. Someone else has to have gotten it too.
Yeah, but didn't that DZ rise from actual, rather than metaphorical, ashes?
Exactly. Hence, Phoenix
Ron 10
QuoteSkydive City as an enterprise is basically dead now. Three of the four otters are at the Ranch, and the 4th one was in pieces the last time I saw it. SDC is still paying their main competition, Deland, for airplanes.
There were 22 4 way teams there last weekend. I would not call that 'dead' in any stretch.
What happened is Billy has lost his monopoly and was reminded that being 1/3 owner does not equal you are the only vendor in town. Him going off and trying to sue is not helping his case. As it stands he has a cool hanger in a place he does not fly and needs to find a new place to winter his planes. I am sure he will not have any trouble finding a place.
The owners are looking at buying aircraft, but Bob Hallett is more than willing to help out till SDC is back on its own feet. Bob was even flying the PAC in Zhills this weekend.... Not exactly a confrontational situation when you have another DZO *flying* at your DZ to help you out.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Quotepuerile
For christ sake you get extra points on this one.
Ron 10
QuoteThere's a reason for that FAA rule, because you shouldn't be flying passengers in a type of aircraft until you have sufficient experience in that aircraft to know how to provide for their safety. TK put all those jumpers at risk by flying them with insufficient experience in that type of aircraft.
While I think TK screwed up.... He just didn't have the rating. He has a Muti engine Commercial, but does not have *single* engine commercial.
So he was considered competent to fly a multi engine otter for commercial reasons. He just did not have a rating. He was competent to fly the Cessna... Just not legal.
BTW I consider that a REALLY stupid rule. so I can fly a Twin Otter for commercial reasons, but I can't fly a Cessna????? Makes zero sense.
He admitted his mistake and will accept the punishment. But there was no extra danger.
QuoteAnd now the biggest problem is; how can he re-gain the trust of his jumpers?
TK and I fight like dogs over politics.... I'd let him fly me anytime.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
QuoteQuoteJohn, You have no idea how much experience or how many hours TK may or may not have in a C-182.
Do you?
The pertinent fact is that TK did NOT have the commercial rating, regardless of the number of hours.QuoteWhile I agree he should not have done what he did, it is far from the worst thing that has ever happened on a DZ.
Agreed.QuoteYou are blowing this Waaaaay out of proportion. An Otter flys just like a big 182.
An Otter flies just like a big 182?
Is that in your professional opinion as an instructor pilot for both aircraft, perchance?
My point is if he can fly an Otter he can fly a 182. I wouldn't think twice about getting in one with him. You and everyone else are free to make your own choices and continue to blow this out of shape and size. I find it more disturbing that Billy called the FAA then TK flying a couple loads in a 182 without being commercially rated in a single.
velvetjo 0
QuoteAND you have to pay your share of the cost of the flight, AND it is supposed to be a flight you would be taking anyway.
Looks like you're might be mixing in some of the rules for "incidental business travel" here. It's not the same animal as simply flying jumpers.
For example, if I owned a grass strip and a 182, my wife (a private pilot checked out in 182's) could drop me and my buddies there all day long as far as the FAA is concerned, so long as we're not charging them for it.
The shades of gray start when people begin "splitting costs" for operating the aircraft. The way I read the FAR's, we could even split costs among *everyone* in the plane and be legal. That's just a bunch of friends goofing off with an airplane, which is far from "holding out" as a business or even incidental business travel.
Would I split costs since it looks to be legal? Probably not, since getting reliable FSDO opinions on this type of thing does not seem to be a very productive venture, and there's always some clown around to call the FAA.
That said, I'd like to know the specifics if you're seeing something different in the FAR's.
Lance
tetra316 0
I would bet the difference comes in that if someone is a manager of a known dz and flies jumpers, whether paying or not, that is quite different than a Joe Blow flying jumpers, paying or not. I think the circumstance would play a lot into how the FAA looks at this. The more obscure you are the more you could get away with, probably....?
billvon 2,990
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>You and everyone else are free to make your own choices and continue >to blow this out of shape and size.
It's not that big a deal but he did make a mistake, and he did the right thing and owned up to it. As a DZO he does have an obligation to follow the rules since he's selling his services to people.
To me it's like using non-TSOed gear and busting clouds. If a jumper does it, no big deal. When a DZO rents non-TSOed gear to students and experienced jumpers as legal gear, and tells people they're going to punch clouds at his DZ, it's a bigger deal. Even if they're OK afterwards.
It's not that big a deal but he did make a mistake, and he did the right thing and owned up to it. As a DZO he does have an obligation to follow the rules since he's selling his services to people.
To me it's like using non-TSOed gear and busting clouds. If a jumper does it, no big deal. When a DZO rents non-TSOed gear to students and experienced jumpers as legal gear, and tells people they're going to punch clouds at his DZ, it's a bigger deal. Even if they're OK afterwards.
muff528 3
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
Perhaps something will rise from the ashes of this mess?
Nice, subtle reference. Someone else has to have gotten it too.
Yeah, but didn't that DZ rise from actual, rather than metaphorical, ashes?
Exactly. Hence, Phoenix
Wow! I just realized it's been 15 years since Phoenix closed at Z-hills! (I think Betty did carry the name to Lk Wales) So, although there are a lot people on here that got the reference, there are way more that haven't been around long enough to remember the place. I started jumping there when there were 2 dropzones there. The fire happened before my time. I started jumping in April 92.
velvetjo 0
I don't know what happened at Z-Hills, so can't comment there. I do agree that there will be more scrutiny on anyone at a high profile DZ though. numbers alone almost guarantee that.
OTOH, the FAR's are the FAR's, and from what I see they don't exclude a Private Pilot from flying jumpers legally in the right circumstances. Just looking to make that distinction, nothing else.
BTW, the FAA does regard flight hours as compensation at times, so beware timebuilders!
Lance
OTOH, the FAR's are the FAR's, and from what I see they don't exclude a Private Pilot from flying jumpers legally in the right circumstances. Just looking to make that distinction, nothing else.
BTW, the FAA does regard flight hours as compensation at times, so beware timebuilders!
Lance
Call me a nut but if we, as an industry, operated above board and got out from under the table in certain areas, then our relationship with the FAA would be a cooperative one as opposed to the current adversarial one.
Yes, there's the "ideal" and then there's "reality".
Yes, there's the "ideal" and then there's "reality".
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
AndyMan 7
QuoteCall me a nut but if we, as an industry, operated above board and got out from under the table in certain areas, then our relationship with the FAA would be a cooperative one as opposed to the current adversarial one.
Yes, there's the "ideal" and then there's "reality".
I agree.
While "I'm here from the FAA and I'm here to help" will ALWAYS be a decently funny joke, it's clear we can do much better.
It seems it's never more than a few years that go by when a plane crashes it turns out it's 5000 hours over TBO, or a jumper gets hurt because they did CRW under a thunderstorm(!!!), or something equally stupid that takes rule breaking to a level that's incomprehensible.
I know that there are small DZ's all over the country that get away with a lot of shit, but when big DZ's act in a similar manner, bad things happen. I don't like bad things.
_Am
__
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
Rumor is...
If this is the case, than it's not hard to understand why the other partners would drop Freefall Express without a cheaper (or even equal) replacement.
As far as the business with TK flying jumpers in a 182, like I mentioned in post #26, while he did break the rules in doing so, this can hardly be looked at a 'safety' issue. The man holds a multi engine comm rating, and I would say that 99% of pilots who hold that rating have logged at least a hundred hours in a Cessna single of one type or another. Combine that with his years of skydiving out of 182s, and I would have no trouble sending my mother up with him as PIC of a 182.
Earning a multi engine comm rating, and getting checked out in an Otter to the satisfaction of the insurance co. is no small feat. Let's not discount that accomplishment and say that his flying jumpers in a 182 is unsafe. Against the 'paperwork' of the FAA for sure, but not unsafe.
QuoteApparently Richards had taken a loan out against his AC business but also used not just his share of Zhills as collateral but the other partners shares also.
If this is the case, than it's not hard to understand why the other partners would drop Freefall Express without a cheaper (or even equal) replacement.
As far as the business with TK flying jumpers in a 182, like I mentioned in post #26, while he did break the rules in doing so, this can hardly be looked at a 'safety' issue. The man holds a multi engine comm rating, and I would say that 99% of pilots who hold that rating have logged at least a hundred hours in a Cessna single of one type or another. Combine that with his years of skydiving out of 182s, and I would have no trouble sending my mother up with him as PIC of a 182.
Earning a multi engine comm rating, and getting checked out in an Otter to the satisfaction of the insurance co. is no small feat. Let's not discount that accomplishment and say that his flying jumpers in a 182 is unsafe. Against the 'paperwork' of the FAA for sure, but not unsafe.
Andy9o8 2
Agreed.
I detect an agenda in this thread. I'm not sure safety is it.
Problem solved, the 182 probably didnt have seats for the jumpers to sit in, so nobody was buying a seat.
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites