Is FAR 135 coming?

[riggerrob 643]

As long as you keep the accident rate low, the FAA would rather not be bothered increasing standards for skydiving aircraft.

An earlier poster was correct in saying that USPA has no teeth, however, skydivers can vote with their dollars. Anytime a skydiver complains - to a DZO -about unprofessional behaviour by a pilot (i.e. zoom climbs right after takeoff) and threatens to spend his dollars at another DZ, he speaks louder than any USPA or FAA official.
The squeacky wheel gets the grease.

[sducoach 0]

Pullhigh,

Most lifeflight operations are 135. There are only a couple companies in the US that provide the service to hospitals. There are a few hospitals that own their own aircraft and contract the pilots from these companies.

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[TomSpoon 4]

Quote

As long as you keep the accident rate low, the FAA would rather not be bothered increasing standards for skydiving aircraft.

That's my point Ron, Skydiving aircraft have an atrocious accident rate. Tom

[sducoach 0]

"That's my point Ron, Skydiving aircraft hav an atrocious accident rate. Tom"
***

Tom,

Where do you find the statistics to support your statement? Where do you find the comparison of, Military, Commercial, Private, operations?

We need to make sure when we make a statement such as yours that we can verify with fact.

Thanks for the info.

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

"That's my point Ron, Skydiving aircraft hav an atrocious accident rate. Tom"
***

Tom,

Where do you find the statistics to support your statement? Where do you find the comparison of, Military, Commercial, Private, operations?

We need to make sure when we make a statement such as yours that we can verify with fact.

Thanks for the info.

Blues,

J.E.

Chris Schindler has a comprehensive database of skydiving plane accidents on his site www.diverdriver.com, and he has made the same statement in the past, so you might want to check Chris's web site.

...

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

[TomSpoon 4]

You know what they say Lies,Damn Lies and Statistics. Hope I added right.

Average accident rate 1994 -1999 per 100,000 flight hrs.

Scheduled FAR 121---------------------0.271
Air taxi Far 135-------------------------3.7
General aviation includes jump A/C----7.7
Jump aircraft only---------------------15.4

Jump aircraft hrs. are estimated based on an
Average of 2,000,000 jumps per year X 10 passengers per aircraft= 200,000 departures @ :30 minutes = 100,000 flight hrs
Average number of jump plane accidents 15.4 [77 total between 94-99] as listed on
http://www.diverdriver.com/Accidents/accidents.htm
Other statistics from FAA
http://www.asy.faa.gov/safety_handbook/Monthly/january/ASSH_ANNL99.PDF

[TomSpoon 4]

Some more recent statistics from 2002

Accidents per 100,000 flight hrs 2002;

121 Air Carriers-----------0.195
135 Non Scheduled-------1.90
General Aviation----------6.56
Jump Aircraft-------------15.0

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Table1.htm

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Some more recent statistics from 2002

Accidents per 100,000 flight hrs 2002;

121 Air Carriers-----------0.195
135 Non Scheduled-------1.90
General Aviation----------6.56
Jump Aircraft-------------15.0

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Table1.htm

And lets not forget that general aviation includes student pilots flying countless touch and goes in training (most hazardous part of flight). The jump plane record doesn't look very good.

...

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

[sducoach 0]

Back to Spoon's question. More training needed? Part 135 required?

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Back to Spoon's question. More training needed? Part 135 required?

Blues,

J.E.

Well, If I were King of the Universe I'd just make sure the Part 91 rules were actually enforced, and require a jump pilot sign-off (rather like you need to be a glider tug pilot, IIRC).

Just following Part 91 would have prevented most, maybe all, of the tragedies.

...

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

[PhreeZone 20]

I'd be interested in seeing some sort of breakdown of how the skydiving accidents break down. If there are more instances of engine outs, or ground loops or exactly what is the cause. I've never seen a chart that shows a break down of what the cause is of jumpship accidents.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I'd be interested in seeing some sort of breakdown of how the skydiving accidents break down. If there are more instances of engine outs, or ground loops or exactly what is the cause. I've never seen a chart that shows a break down of what the cause is of jumpship accidents.

And you could be the one to produce it! Chris's web site www.diverdriver.com has all the data for you, all you need do is organize and chart it. I'll bet Chris would post it on his site if you do (if he won't, I'll put it on my site).

...

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

[riddler 0]

Is it valid based on flight hours to compare commercial aircraft to skydiving planes? After all, jump planes spend most of their life just taking off and landing, which is the most dangerous part, and probably the hardest on the mechanics. Seems that they are always going to have one of the highest percentage of incidents.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Is it valid based on flight hours to compare commercial aircraft to skydiving planes? After all, jump planes spend most of their life just taking off and landing, which is the most dangerous part, and probably the hardest on the mechanics.

Absolutely it is fair. That's specifically why the General Aviation numbers INCLUDE student flights, which consists largely of take-offs and landings. Student flights do far more take-offs and landings then skydiving flights, but even THEY have a far better accident rate.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

I'd much rather see the USPA audit group member DZs, "forcing" them to comply with high standards. Part 135 just simply contains way too many regulations that don't make sense for skydiving (or sightseeing for that matter).

The huge florida or CA dropzones could probably do it pretty easily. But what about a little cessna DZ or something in between?

Dave

There are single, piston Part 135 operators all over the place. Doesn't seem to be a problem to them.

The biggest thing I think will effect pilot hiring. When they won't be able to fly pilots like I used to (12-12 hours per day) then the costs will go up because pilots aren't paid squat in this industry. And don't give me "building time" melarky. People gotta eat.

Then there will be the engine life requirement. No engine over 15 years old will be allowed on Part 135 ops no matter how many hours are on it. This rule may have been changed since the last time I looked so correct me if I'm wrong. But that could be a biggy. But not a baddy in my opinion.

There would be no more "ran engine 1,000 hours in excess of TBO". Wouldn't that be wonderful?

And there would be actual documentation that your pilot actually learned something about flying skydivers and had to prove on each load that he was not over max gross takeoff weight and in CG. Hmmm...wonderful concepts that would keep jumpers alive longer in jump planes.

Someone ealier asked what the accident rate for jump planes is. It is DOUBLE the rate for all of General Aviation. That's comparing ourselves to other Private Pilots, Student Pilots, and Commercial Pilots combined. We are high cycle but so is Instructional Flying. They have a LOWER accident rate than General Aviation. What does that tell you? Basicly, we suck. Have a nice day.


edit to add: I didn't really read the whole thread before posting. I see that most of my points have already been made. I'm glad to see others see this also.

Now, a caveat, I do harp on the accident rate being double that of GA. I DO include accidents in jump planes such as ferry flights and maintenance flights that are not in the actual conduct of dropping jumpers. However, I do believe these numbers are significant since it is stil the same pilot take you up over your DZ that had the accident. Their judgement is important. If the engine fails on a maintenance flight it very easily could have happened on your flight with jumpers. That is why I list these accidents with my statistics. Just thought I should clearify and give "full disclosure" so no one accuses me of scewing the statistics.

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

[sducoach 0]

Chris,

What in the heck are you doing??????

Speaking from a point of knowledge and experience like that. Man, how can they argue???????

There went all the rants and raves.........................

Thanks Bro.

Blues,

J.E.

ATP / D17128
and better looking than you too!!!!!!!

James 4:8

[kallend 2,027]

Chris, what do you think of this comment?

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=922603#922603

Have similar rules as glider tug pilots?

...

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

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Chris, what do you think of this comment?

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=922603#922603

Have similar rules as glider tug pilots?

I would like to see some list of educational requirements in order to fly each type of plane with jumpers. Any Commercial pilot with the sign off for that plane could sign other pilots off with a logbook endorcement. They would demonstrate knowledge of FAR 91,105. They would have to show weight and balance calculations for many different types of loads. They would have to calculate the fuel necessary to fly jumpers and have reserves. And they would have to fly with that pilot and demonstrate not only normal jump operations but also demonstrate simulated engine failure procedures in different phases of flight. That's just the short list.

However, many people were opposed to the idea of added regulation. However, as it is, there is NO requirement for ANY training on how to fly jumpers. That's pretty scary. Those that already do a good job would not see any difference in what they are doing now. The requirement would be a non-issue.

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

[tombuch 0]

Quote

However, as it is, there is NO requirement for ANY training on how to fly jumpers. That's pretty scary.

Nor is there any requirement to practice stall spin recovery. Heck, as I recall, a multi-engine pilot under part 91 needs only to demonstrate proficiency in a single engine plane every two years, and that can be done as a "Wings" refresher that completely misses all the important elements of flying people. I may be wrong, but I don't recall any specific requirements for multi-engine pilots other than the three t/o and landings. Now THAT'S scary.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem)
Commercial Pilot (IAMSEL,G)
Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[diverdriver 5]

No kidding.

[base698 14]

BTTT

 

https://www.schatz.senate.gov/download/air-tour-and-skydiving-safety-improvement-act-of-2020

[JoeWeber 2,720]

18 hours ago, base698 said:

BTTT

 

https://www.schatz.senate.gov/download/air-tour-and-skydiving-safety-improvement-act-of-2020

And we won't need to spend all day wondering who did it to us. 

[skybytch 273]

20 hours ago, base698 said:

BTTT

 

https://www.schatz.senate.gov/download/air-tour-and-skydiving-safety-improvement-act-of-2020

Oh boy.  Just going to throw this out there.... anybody else think this wouldn't have been an issue if tandems had not become amusement park rides? I mean, look at where the Senator is from. 

If it was only skydivers dying, nobody would care. But once enough Grandmas have died on a tandem....

We wanted turbines.  Tandems helped us get them.  Now every skydiver gets to pay more to jump out of them. 

Or pay nothing to not jump.

 

 

 

 

 

[riggerrob 643]

The only new thing I see is mandatory annual refresher training for jump-pilots.

Having written procedures and adhering to engine manufacturers' recommendations gets my vote. If USPA is smart, they will write generic jump-plane manuals and distribute them to USPA Group Member DZs. BPA ans APF complied generic jump-plane manuals more than a decade ago.

A long time ago, Beechcraft and P&WC insisted that "operation on condition" was not allowed for King Airs employed as jump-planes because jump-plane mission profiles are so much different than the corporate transport mission originally intended.

I suffered numerous injuries when a King Air jump-plane crashed. The comedy of errors ... er .. chian of errors started with a lazy mechanic who decided to skip and inspection. A fuel pump failed and then things got worse.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

7 hours ago, skybytch said:

Oh boy.  Just going to throw this out there.... anybody else think this wouldn't have been an issue if tandems had not become amusement park rides? I mean, look at where the Senator is from. 

If it was only skydivers dying, nobody would care. But once enough Grandmas have died on a tandem....

We wanted turbines.  Tandems helped us get them.  Now every skydiver gets to pay more to jump out of them. 

Or pay nothing to not jump.

 

 

 

 

 

No, I do not think so. I think that DZO's should have taken some of their increased profits and spent it on better airplanes, fresher engines and better pilot training.