faulknerwn 38 #26 July 24, 2007 I wouldn't think the plane ending up upside-down would qualify as minor... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #27 July 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteBut of course it seems that their silence extends to reporting it to the NTSB/FAA because at least so far, no report of the crash is on the NTSB website. Are minor incidents required to be reported? If so, what is the time limit? Can't minor incidents be reported on the NASA ASRS as an alternative? What I'm told is that two jumpers were injured requiring them to go to the hospital. According to NTSB 830 that has to be reported to the NTSB immediately basicly. That is not a minor incident. And even incidents have to be reported if they fall into a certain list. Every pilot should know that. And every DZO should be made to know that. Snapping a nose gear off ususally involves bending the firewall to some degree and that alone would warrant a report to NTSB. But I can't imagine the tail being tweaked could be considered "minor" either. NASA ASRS is for inadvertant deviations from the FARs. While they didn't intend to flip a 182 on the roof I'd say that's outside the pervue of the NASA program.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #28 July 25, 2007 QuoteI wouldn't think the plane ending up upside-down would qualify as minor... So feel free to call the NTSB and snitch on them. Maybe a preliminary report is already in the works, and just hasn't been published yet. Have you considered that possibility? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #29 July 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteI wouldn't think the plane ending up upside-down would qualify as minor... So feel free to call the NTSB and snitch on them. Maybe a preliminary report is already in the works, and just hasn't been published yet. Have you considered that possibility? Snitch. Great John. Thanks for the name calling. Maybe I'm hoping the DZ will act with integrity and do the right thing. They crashed it. They can deal with it. See, I don't go running to the FAA right away. I do try to get people to do the right thing themselves. If a prelim report is in the works and the FAA has already been contacted then why don't they say so? The silence is deafening. It doesn't take much to get a FAA prelim report. They update their website daily with bare bones information. Had that come across I'd feel more confident that someone did report it. But nothing is out there. Hence my questioning things here. Do you see anyone coming on here saying nothing happened? Nope. So let's call a spade a spade.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tombuch 0 #30 July 25, 2007 To all: Ya know, the integrity of the entire aviation system is based on compliance. As a jumper I have no way to evaluate the performance of an operator, and trust the FAA to do that for me. If mandatory incident and accident reports are not made, then the FAA can’t do their job, and as a user I am left in the dark. When an operator refuses to report an incident, they corrupt the system that the rest of us depend on. That’s a big deal. It hurts us all. At this point plenty of people know something probably happened at Texas Skydiving in Lexington, Texas. Interestingly, Texas Skydiving is not listed on the USPA site as a member. They do have a web site at: http://www.austinskydiving.com/, and although the banner on the site says they are “Texas Skydiving” the “About Us” page uses the names “Texas Skydiving” and “Austin Skydiving” interchangeably. The “Staff” subhead says they are “affiliated” with Skydive University, but the Skydive University site does not include them as a campus location. This DZ may have some SDU coaches on staff, but using the term “affiliated” seems like a stretch. I think the first line of questioning should be to contact the DZ at 979-773-9100. Once that’s done, or if folks choose not to make that call, an alternative is to contact the FAA directly and ask them to begin an investigation. That’s not snitching. It’s protecting the system that protects us all. Making a citizens report to the FAA is pretty easy stuff…There is reasonable grounds to know the aircraft involved, the operator involved, the date of the incident, the extent of the damage, and that two injured passengers were treated at a local hospital. The FAA can take it from there. They are usually willing to hear from a citizen on an anonymous basis. Typically, the inspector will offer to keep things anonymous as the conversation begins, but if he feels he needs to put you on the record he will tell you when the conversation reaches that point, and allow you to discontinue. Lexington is just northeast of Austin, and is covered by the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) in Houston. They can be reached by phone at 281-929-7000, or 888-285-2127. There is also an email notification form on their web site under the “Contact” link available at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/hou/contact/. So, with that information, there is a good deal of cover for anybody who chooses to contact the FAA.Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #31 July 25, 2007 QuoteYa know, the integrity of the entire aviation system is based on compliance. As a jumper I have no way to evaluate the performance of an operator, and trust the FAA to do that for me. If mandatory incident and accident reports are not made, then the FAA can’t do their job, and as a user I am left in the dark. When an operator refuses to report an incident, they corrupt the system that the rest of us depend on. That’s a big deal. It hurts us all. Reminds me of the time ASC at Cedartown had the Porter which suffered a damaged bulkhead while diving down with a 4 way group of head-down freeflyers, and one of them backed right into it on breakoff. They never reported it and got it fixed asap to cover it up. Yeah, it got reported, by an outside source."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #32 July 25, 2007 QuoteMaybe I'm hoping the DZ will act with integrity and do the right thing... If a prelim report is in the works and the FAA has already been contacted then why don't they say so? The silence is deafening... So let's call a spade a spade. They're under no obligation to report the accident to Dropzone.com, or to tell us here what steps they've taken. And just because they're silent here, doesn't mean that they are trying to hide it from government officials. All I see here is a lot of people jumping to conclusions, without any evidence. I don't know whether they reported it or not. But I'm not going to conclude that there is something nefarious going on. I'm going to give it some time and wait and see if a preliminary report appears. Quote from the NTSB: "There are several types of reports available: preliminary reports, which are usually available within a month of the accident..."Source: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/aviation/faq/section-19.html So you see, even prelim reports aren't instantaneous. They take up to a month before they appear. But if you want, you can go get some rope and head that way with a lynch mob... Oh, and the person to whom I made the "snitch" comment jumps at a competitive DZ to the one in question. Do you suppose that has anything to do with all their concern about whether or not it was reported? Would getting your competition in trouble be good for your own business? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #33 July 25, 2007 QuoteSo feel free to snitch on them You know John it's not the 70's anymore and someone telling the Fed's about some shady operator just might save your ass one day, then again if you find your ass riding a crashing AC to your death due to some sub standard repairs by a shady operator, you might just wish someone had Snitched as you so put it, but then again you might not really care as with many others.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #34 July 25, 2007 Quotesomeone telling the Fed's about some shady operator just might save your ass one day, then again if you find your ass riding a crashing AC to your death due to some sub standard repairs by a shady operator, you might just wish someone had Snitched as you so put it, but then again you might not really care... See what I mean about jumping to conclusions? Just because someone had a take-off accident, doesn't mean that they are a "shady operator", or that they made "sub-standard repairs". And just because I'm reserving my judgement until the facts are known, does not mean that I "don't really care" about safety. Sheesh! Go get the rope, and let's have us a hangin'! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #35 July 25, 2007 QuoteQuote Oh, and the person to whom I made the "snitch" comment jumps at a competitive DZ to the one in question. Do you suppose that has anything to do with all their concern about whether or not it was reported? Would getting your competition in trouble be good for your own business? First it was "jumps at a competitive DZ", and it suddenly became "competition" for her "own business". So what is it, John, does she own the competitive DZ or just jump there?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites stratostar 5 #36 July 25, 2007 No you missed the point john, did I say this operator was shady? No I said those who are, you might wished some one had spoke up about them one day But because of people like you many people keep their mouth shut about bad shit they know about, because people like you call them rats or snitching. It's your poor choice of words I talking about, maybe the locals know and are to worried about being labled a snitch or rat by the likes of you that keeps their mouth shut while some duck tape and bailing wire repairs are made.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #37 July 25, 2007 QuoteNo you missed the point john, did I say this operator was shady? No I said those who are, you might wished some one had spoke up about them one day Then you should have made it clear that you meant that in a generic sense, rather than as something applicable to the topic of this particular thread. QuoteBut because of people like you many people keep their mouth shut about bad shit they know about, because people like you call them rats or snitching. It's your poor choice of words I talking about, maybe the locals know and are to worried about being labled a snitch or rat by the likes of you that keeps their mouth shut while some duck tape and bailing wire repairs are made. Oh yeah, I'm sure they're all terrified of me calling them a name. Far more terrified than they are of riding in a plane that is held together with duct tape. Yeah, right. Ha! I'm a real jerk for suggesting that judgement be withheld until the facts are known. Damn me! Found a good rope yet? Look, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't know those folks, and I've never jumped there. I don't know what their reputation is. I'm just speaking up for the simple concept of withholding judgement until the facts are known, and not jumping to conclusions. Is that really so horrible? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #38 July 26, 2007 Quotejumping to conclusions But didn't you know that's the only kind of jumping that happens on DZ.com?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billeisele 130 #39 July 26, 2007 Since when do we try to confuse the issue with facts?there is some sure fire nefarious stuff going on here, JR- what exactly does that word mean anyway let the facts be known before we lynch 'em - you know just like - personally i don't think that the honorable Mr. Vick had anything at all to do with dog fighting, i say to the gallows forthwith TB has provided the info to place an anonymous call to the FAA, certainly there is at least one honest person that knows the facts will do it if in fact a report has not already been made but JR - you do have a dog in this fight if you like to fly and jump, the feds are big on following the rules, the last thing we need is the feds thinking that skydivers don't follow the rules Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diverdriver 5 #40 July 26, 2007 John, so you didn't call me a snitch. Ok. Put calling anyone who has a safety concern that gets the safety regulator involved to see if it's really a problem is snitching? Come on. You want to wait until the facts are know but how can they be known if no one reported it? Exactly. I also know that the NTSB can take a month or two to come out with a prelim report. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the FAA daily intake. (I have several search sites) and I keep tabs on things John. And there has been nothing between the two reporting agencies. Hence my asking questions here. I can't hang anyone unless they give me the rope with which to do it.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 78RATS 0 #41 July 26, 2007 [because people like you call them rats or snitching] Okay. Can we just leave rats out of the discussion. We didn't do nuthin to nobody. Rat for Life - Fly till I die When them stupid ass bitches ask why Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites apachedriver 0 #42 August 2, 2007 Let me introduce myself, my name is Dave and I am not a jumper. Pilot yes, hence the desire to stay with the aircraft. I am also actively engaged in aircraft safety as indicated by my e-mail address. As an Aviation Safety Inspector with the local FSDO I can assure you that we do rely on operator compliance in order to ensure aviation safety. When an operator doesn't comply it is usually an anonymous tip that leads us down the road to investigation. That being the case this matter has come to our attention. Initial information came from other sources but has led me here. I want to assure the skydiving community that we don't want to curtail your activity, but we do want you to have a safe environment so that you may do it another day. This is the first indication that there may have been injuries involved and we are very interested. Any additional information about this incident would be greatly appreciated. Be safe out there!!David M. Metz Aviation Safety Inspector Houston FSDO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Stephen 0 #43 August 2, 2007 I personally spoke with the DZO this morning. According to her this was not an accident. There were no injuries. The aircraft lost oil pressure while on the runway. The pilot was taxiing back to the hanger and the nose fell into a mud hole. They do operate from a grass strip and it has been raining in Texas! Please stop the speculation! If you want to know something go directly to the source. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mark 107 #44 August 3, 2007 Quote[T]his was not an accident. There were no injuries. The aircraft lost oil pressure while on the runway. The pilot was taxiing back to the hanger and the nose fell into a mud hole. If the pilot intended to fly, and if there was substantial damage to the aircraft, then it is a reportable accident. Even if the wheels never left the surface, and even if there were no injuries. A report would be required within 10 days at most. See NTSB 830. Not saying that was the case here. Just saying. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks2065 0 #45 August 3, 2007 if the nose went in the mud didn't the prop strike the ground ? i'm not a pilot but that sounds like an accident - doesn't the engine need a tear down for this ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mark 107 #46 August 3, 2007 Quote If the nose went in the mud didn't the prop strike the ground ? I'm not a pilot but that sounds like an accident - doesn't the engine need a tear down for this ? The mere fact of damage is not enough to establish a reportable accident. If the damage occurred while the pilot was taxiing from the hanger to the gas pump, it would not be reportable; if, after having gotten gas the pilot intended to fly but damaged the aircraft while taxiing to the runway, it would be reportable. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites flyer299 0 #47 August 5, 2007 To clear up rumors.... I was there when it happened, no Injuries. DZO and Pilot are talking with the correct people (FAA/NTSB) to clear up any questions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #48 August 6, 2007 QuoteI personally spoke with the DZO this morning. According to her this was not an accident. There were no injuries. The aircraft lost oil pressure while on the runway. The pilot was taxiing back to the hanger and the nose fell into a mud hole. It seems the FAA thinks that the AC ended up on it's back in a field, and has listed the damage as substantial. Maybe you or the DZO should call them and make sure they have their facts straight (or check your own facts, or whatever). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diverdriver 5 #49 August 6, 2007 QuoteQuoteI personally spoke with the DZO this morning. According to her this was not an accident. There were no injuries. The aircraft lost oil pressure while on the runway. The pilot was taxiing back to the hanger and the nose fell into a mud hole. It seems the FAA thinks that the AC ended up on it's back in a field, and has listed the damage as substantial. Maybe you or the DZO should call them and make sure they have their facts straight (or check your own facts, or whatever). I've seen the photos. This most certainly is not a taxi incident. If the DZO truly told this person such a story they are lying through their teeth.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites drjump 0 #50 August 6, 2007 "If the plane lost oil pressure, while on the runway" Why didn't the pilot shut the engine down, to prevent damage to the engine, and tow the plane back to the hanger? Just how 'fast' was he taxiing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
stratostar 5 #36 July 25, 2007 No you missed the point john, did I say this operator was shady? No I said those who are, you might wished some one had spoke up about them one day But because of people like you many people keep their mouth shut about bad shit they know about, because people like you call them rats or snitching. It's your poor choice of words I talking about, maybe the locals know and are to worried about being labled a snitch or rat by the likes of you that keeps their mouth shut while some duck tape and bailing wire repairs are made.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #37 July 25, 2007 QuoteNo you missed the point john, did I say this operator was shady? No I said those who are, you might wished some one had spoke up about them one day Then you should have made it clear that you meant that in a generic sense, rather than as something applicable to the topic of this particular thread. QuoteBut because of people like you many people keep their mouth shut about bad shit they know about, because people like you call them rats or snitching. It's your poor choice of words I talking about, maybe the locals know and are to worried about being labled a snitch or rat by the likes of you that keeps their mouth shut while some duck tape and bailing wire repairs are made. Oh yeah, I'm sure they're all terrified of me calling them a name. Far more terrified than they are of riding in a plane that is held together with duct tape. Yeah, right. Ha! I'm a real jerk for suggesting that judgement be withheld until the facts are known. Damn me! Found a good rope yet? Look, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't know those folks, and I've never jumped there. I don't know what their reputation is. I'm just speaking up for the simple concept of withholding judgement until the facts are known, and not jumping to conclusions. Is that really so horrible? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #38 July 26, 2007 Quotejumping to conclusions But didn't you know that's the only kind of jumping that happens on DZ.com?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 130 #39 July 26, 2007 Since when do we try to confuse the issue with facts?there is some sure fire nefarious stuff going on here, JR- what exactly does that word mean anyway let the facts be known before we lynch 'em - you know just like - personally i don't think that the honorable Mr. Vick had anything at all to do with dog fighting, i say to the gallows forthwith TB has provided the info to place an anonymous call to the FAA, certainly there is at least one honest person that knows the facts will do it if in fact a report has not already been made but JR - you do have a dog in this fight if you like to fly and jump, the feds are big on following the rules, the last thing we need is the feds thinking that skydivers don't follow the rules Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #40 July 26, 2007 John, so you didn't call me a snitch. Ok. Put calling anyone who has a safety concern that gets the safety regulator involved to see if it's really a problem is snitching? Come on. You want to wait until the facts are know but how can they be known if no one reported it? Exactly. I also know that the NTSB can take a month or two to come out with a prelim report. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the FAA daily intake. (I have several search sites) and I keep tabs on things John. And there has been nothing between the two reporting agencies. Hence my asking questions here. I can't hang anyone unless they give me the rope with which to do it.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
78RATS 0 #41 July 26, 2007 [because people like you call them rats or snitching] Okay. Can we just leave rats out of the discussion. We didn't do nuthin to nobody. Rat for Life - Fly till I die When them stupid ass bitches ask why Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apachedriver 0 #42 August 2, 2007 Let me introduce myself, my name is Dave and I am not a jumper. Pilot yes, hence the desire to stay with the aircraft. I am also actively engaged in aircraft safety as indicated by my e-mail address. As an Aviation Safety Inspector with the local FSDO I can assure you that we do rely on operator compliance in order to ensure aviation safety. When an operator doesn't comply it is usually an anonymous tip that leads us down the road to investigation. That being the case this matter has come to our attention. Initial information came from other sources but has led me here. I want to assure the skydiving community that we don't want to curtail your activity, but we do want you to have a safe environment so that you may do it another day. This is the first indication that there may have been injuries involved and we are very interested. Any additional information about this incident would be greatly appreciated. Be safe out there!!David M. Metz Aviation Safety Inspector Houston FSDO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stephen 0 #43 August 2, 2007 I personally spoke with the DZO this morning. According to her this was not an accident. There were no injuries. The aircraft lost oil pressure while on the runway. The pilot was taxiing back to the hanger and the nose fell into a mud hole. They do operate from a grass strip and it has been raining in Texas! Please stop the speculation! If you want to know something go directly to the source. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 107 #44 August 3, 2007 Quote[T]his was not an accident. There were no injuries. The aircraft lost oil pressure while on the runway. The pilot was taxiing back to the hanger and the nose fell into a mud hole. If the pilot intended to fly, and if there was substantial damage to the aircraft, then it is a reportable accident. Even if the wheels never left the surface, and even if there were no injuries. A report would be required within 10 days at most. See NTSB 830. Not saying that was the case here. Just saying. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #45 August 3, 2007 if the nose went in the mud didn't the prop strike the ground ? i'm not a pilot but that sounds like an accident - doesn't the engine need a tear down for this ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 107 #46 August 3, 2007 Quote If the nose went in the mud didn't the prop strike the ground ? I'm not a pilot but that sounds like an accident - doesn't the engine need a tear down for this ? The mere fact of damage is not enough to establish a reportable accident. If the damage occurred while the pilot was taxiing from the hanger to the gas pump, it would not be reportable; if, after having gotten gas the pilot intended to fly but damaged the aircraft while taxiing to the runway, it would be reportable. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyer299 0 #47 August 5, 2007 To clear up rumors.... I was there when it happened, no Injuries. DZO and Pilot are talking with the correct people (FAA/NTSB) to clear up any questions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #48 August 6, 2007 QuoteI personally spoke with the DZO this morning. According to her this was not an accident. There were no injuries. The aircraft lost oil pressure while on the runway. The pilot was taxiing back to the hanger and the nose fell into a mud hole. It seems the FAA thinks that the AC ended up on it's back in a field, and has listed the damage as substantial. Maybe you or the DZO should call them and make sure they have their facts straight (or check your own facts, or whatever). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #49 August 6, 2007 QuoteQuoteI personally spoke with the DZO this morning. According to her this was not an accident. There were no injuries. The aircraft lost oil pressure while on the runway. The pilot was taxiing back to the hanger and the nose fell into a mud hole. It seems the FAA thinks that the AC ended up on it's back in a field, and has listed the damage as substantial. Maybe you or the DZO should call them and make sure they have their facts straight (or check your own facts, or whatever). I've seen the photos. This most certainly is not a taxi incident. If the DZO truly told this person such a story they are lying through their teeth.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drjump 0 #50 August 6, 2007 "If the plane lost oil pressure, while on the runway" Why didn't the pilot shut the engine down, to prevent damage to the engine, and tow the plane back to the hanger? Just how 'fast' was he taxiing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
