Otter Tail-Passenger?

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Then if the total exceeds the allowable maximum, have an alert pop-up so the pilot can make a decision. Excellent idea.

JumpRun!, the most commonly used DZ manifest software already does this, I think...

IIRC, when you print load sheets the total reported weight is printed on the bottom.

The problem is that this depends on jumpers to accurately report their weight at the start of the year.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[billvon 2,989]

>I'm guessing that means Twin Otters that just fueled and take on
>23 pax are overweight?

Well, depends on about a million factors. For example, SDAZ otters have all the right seat instruments removed. That's probably 80 pounds right there. Some aicraft have optional equipment (deicing boots etc) that others don't. So you'd have to decide on a case by case basis.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

For the record, my 190 rig weighs 23 lbs. But I am guessing that my instructors 105 rig weighs less.

They really don't get much lighter, my old Micron V304/Vx-60/PD-106R weighed over 20 pounds. The smaller rigs have the same harness and the canopies just don't make that much of a difference.

I do know that aircraft over 12,500 pounds max take off weight require the pilot to have a type rating (a FAA check ride) and the TO is certified to 12,500 pounds so that it does not require a type rating. I suspect it will perform fine (with -27/-34 engines) over 12,500 and 12,500 was selected to avoid the type rating issue. This may be one of those cases where even though against the rules, it isn't unsafe to load a TO over 12,500 pounds.

Derek

[tigra 0]

Jeth, I'm not a pilot, but I think second group out works OK for the hole too. You just crawl out as the first group exits.

[Praetorian 1]

Quote

Skydive Chicago runs both of their -27 Otters with two people in the hole. They even installed seatbelts back there.

I'm not sure why they can do it but everyone else can not. It may have to do with their 3000 foot paved runway.

I could be wrong but I really doubt the runway has anything to do with it, FULL FULL LOAD on a HOT HOT humid day last summer and the otters at SDC still did not come anywhere near needing the whole runway. other then the pilot watching his ass I dont think the length of available runway has anything to do with max take off weight REGULATIONS ... again I could be wrong

Good Judgment comes from experience...a lot of experience comes from bad
judgment.

[billvon 2,989]

>FULL FULL LOAD on a HOT HOT humid day last summer and
>the otters at SDC still did not come anywhere near needing the
>whole runway.

That's not why you need a long runway. If you lose power before decision speed you need the distance to be able to come to a stop before the end of the runway. The issue is largely academic with otters since they are designed as STOL aircraft, but may still be an issue with other skydiving aircraft.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Heh???

I don`t know why are you explain it, because that is almost the way it is done.

Anyway we don`t scale anyone, just ask about their weight. Gear is about 10kgs.

[chrisgr 0]

Quote

The issue is largely academic with otters since they are designed as STOL aircraft, but may still be an issue with other skydiving aircraft.

Lady Luck used every inch of that runway when I was there.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Lady Luck used every inch of that runway when I was there.

Jumpers should be wary of any airplane that uses the ENTIRE runway. When that plane is is 60 years old and has engines that burn more oil than gas, even more so.

One of the sciariest jumps I've been on involved a fully loaded CASA with very tired engines, on a very hot and humid day, with a 2600 foot grass runway. There's really nothing like looking out the back of the tailgate and seeing a mass of shredded cornstocks flying aft.

To get this thread back on track, I'd put a lot more faith in diverDriver's explanation about the Otter than my (admittedly) idle speculation about Skydive Chicago's long runways.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[chrisgr 0]

Quote

I'd put a lot more faith in diverDriver's explanation about the Otter than my (admittedly) idle speculation about Skydive Chicago's long runways.

Is he still there?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Jumpers should be wary of any airplane that uses the ENTIRE runway

Yeah, that Citation that took off out of Coulter that most of the 4200ft of the runway...its probably not a safe plane.

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

[tigra 0]

You should have seen Mr. Douglas takeoff for the old Skydive Chicago airport!

For the record though, I seriously doubt Lady Luck used (or needed) the entire runway at the "new" SDC.

[riggerrob 643]

This may be one of those cases where even though against the rules, it isn't unsafe to load a TO over 12,500 pounds.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It might be safe to fly a NEW airplane, at gross weight, to the red-line, on a hot day, etc.
As airplanes age, they get heavier and slower, metal fatigues, engines no longer produce book-value power, etc.
Only a fool would exceed published limits in a 20 year old airplane. Hint, Twin Otter production ceased in the late 1980s. Most jump planes are far older than that. For example, our Cessna 182s are as old as me ... closer to 50 years old than I care to admit!

[chrisgr 0]

She taxied down to one end and burned the grass at the other.

Perhaps not the 'safest' jumpship, but a great ride!

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

If you try sitting in the hole (aft of the door where the toilet used to be) of our King Air, you will subjected to all kinds of verbal abuse and the airplane will not taxi until you get your lazy butt forward of the (aft edge of the) door frame.


I don't want to fly in any Twin Otter with anyone sitting aft of the cargo door.

Hundreds of DZs have proven - over millions of flying hours - that airplanes will fly over-loaded, but they fall out of the sky when out-of-balance.

DiverDriver is just about the most anal pilot I know (this is NOT a personal attack, Chris, I like my pilots to be anal). If DD has looked into the numbers and determined that they are OK, and got the FAA inspector to agree, then it's OK with me.

...

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

[tigra 0]

Next time you are at SDC take a look at the old runway- they usually fly over it and its hard to miss. About half the size and Lady Luck and Mr. Douglas regularly took off and landed from there.

[billvon 2,989]

>Yeah, that Citation that took off out of Coulter that most of
>the 4200ft of the runway...its probably not a safe plane.

Twin engine business jets have different operating procedures. For one thing, they often have separate V1 and V2 speeds. V1 is "decision" speed, and comes far before takeoff, or V2. Which means that if you hit V1, and your left engine explodes and starts a fire, you have to continue with the takeoff because even though you're still on the ground you won't have enough runway left to stop. Of course, after takeoff, now you are airborne flying on one engine with a fire going, which isn't the best place to be.

The primary reason business aviation is as safe as it is is that the aircraft are maintained to very high standards and the crews are trained very extensively, due to the greater risks imposed by their higher rotation speeds, higher maximum speeds, higher operational altitudes etc. Skydiving aircraft are not maintained to the same standards, nor are their pilots as extensively trained. Thus it's a good thing we have STOL aircraft that are pretty reliable inherently, long runways and passengers who can leave if there's a problem.

[AggieDave 6]

Bill,

You missed my point.

The point was an attack against generalized rules of thumbs for people who have no concept of AC. I fully admit that I'm neither a pilot nor an A&P, so I can't stand there and state "Gee, that plane took a lot of runway, I bet its unsafe."

See what I'm saying?

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

[billvon 2,989]

>"Gee, that plane took a lot of runway, I bet its unsafe."
>See what I'm saying?

I see your point - but - everything else being equal, a plane that takes off in 1/3 of the runway is safer than a plane that takes 90% of the runway to get off the ground. That's not to say that it's unsafe, just that the pilot has one less option if he has a problem before he's off the ground (or even shortly thereafter.)

As an example of this, at the FBO I used to fly at we had a 7500 foot runway. One day a guy rented a 172 from our FBO and was taking off. Apparently just after takeoff some sediment shifted and clogged a carburetor port and he lost power. He just landed on the remaining 5000 feet of runway with no fuss. That's a rare occurrence, but when it does happen it sure is nice to have the extra runway.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I see your point - but - everything else being equal, a plane that takes off in 1/3 of the runway is safer than a plane that takes 90% of the runway to get off the ground.

Lets look at a 182 in this scenerio. A pilot could take an overloaded 182 push it well past the green on the manifold pressure and pull it up right on the edge of a stall using only 1/3 of the runway, right?

By the stated rule of thumb, that's a safe airplane.

I use that example, since in 1999 the former DZ at KCFD (not Aggieland, but the old DZ), a very similar instance happened. When the pilot lost a jug due to having shot cooled the engine previously, it was 100% unrecoverable.


I highly encourage people to atleast take take some basic flight lessons and spend some time chatting with an A&P. Even better if the A&P will let you hang out during an annual or 100hr.

A better understanding of how, what and why will give a generally better educated jump community. Then overstated rules of thumb won't matter and jumpers will tend to ask better questions of their pilots and have a better understanding of how an AC should be maintained.

All in all it would raise the overall AC safety in the sport.

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

[Jeth 0]

Quote

Jeth, I'm not a pilot, but I think second group out works OK for the hole too. You just crawl out as the first group exits.

Yep. When the plane's packed theres no where to go until that first group exits. So they go, and that gives us enough room to come out of the hole.

"At 13,000 feet nothing else matters."
PFRX!!!!!
Team Funnel #174, Sunshine kisspass #109
My Jump Site

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I see your point - but - everything else being equal, a plane that takes off in 1/3 of the runway is safer than a plane that takes 90% of the runway to get off the ground.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lets look at a 182 in this scenerio. A pilot could take an overloaded 182 push it well past the green on the manifold pressure and pull it up right on the edge of a stall using only 1/3 of the runway, right?

By the stated rule of thumb, that's a safe airplane.

Come on now. Read the rule of thumb again, it states, 'everything else being equal'.


So yes, if you have an overloaded AC, and are pushing the engine, and playing with a stall, wouldn't you rather have 2/3 of the runway ahead of you?

Imagine that same scenario, but with only 10% of the runway up ahead (remember, all thnigs are equal).

Not that I would want to be in either situation, but the more runway the better.

[billvon 2,989]

>Lets look at a 182 in this scenerio. A pilot could take an overloaded 182
>push it well past the green on the manifold pressure and pull it up right
>on the edge of a stall using only 1/3 of the runway, right?

>By the stated rule of thumb, that's a safe airplane.

If one airplane has to do that to get off in 1/3 of the runway, and another airplane has to do that to get off in 90% of the runway - yes, the one that takes 1/3 of the runway is the safer aircraft under those conditions. Any pilot can do something stupid; more runway provides a bit of margin against the results of that stupidity.

[AndyMan 7]

And you missed mine.

Long runway requirements are just one of the reasons that Citation isn't a good jump plane, the same reason a CASA isn't a good choice for a short grass runway on a hot day with a full load.

If a jumpship appears to be having trouble clearing the fence, a jumper would be wise to say "gee, that plane sure is using a lot of runway. Maybe I should go ask someone..."


_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If one airplane has to do that to get off in 1/3 of the runway, and another airplane has to do that to get off in 90% of the runway - yes, the one that takes 1/3 of the runway is the safer aircraft under those conditions. Any pilot can do something stupid; more runway provides a bit of margin against the results of that stupidity.

Just to put some emphasis on what Billvon said (bolding is mine). By way of helping to clear-up this argument:

It's not that the aircraft itself is unsafe. I think what is being said is that the aircraft in those conditions is less safe in a takeoff emergency than one that uses less runway. It's really more about the runway conditions available, rather than the airplane.

Thus, a Citation jet that needs 5,000' feet to get airborne, will be just as safe on a 10,000' runway, as a C-182 that needs 1,500' for takeoff using a 3,000' runway.