How important is the maintenance of Skydiving Aircraft to you?

[buzzfink 5]

I hear more and more horror stories about aircraft maintenance. I am simply curious how important it is to most jumpers. To me, it is of the utmost importance!


Buzz

[sducoach 0]

Buzz,

As an ATP CFIMEII and a skydiver I am very critical of both the aircraft AND the pilot. I for one am not affraid to correct a pilot or mechanic when It's my students and me getting in.

This should be good...........

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[towerrat 0]

I personally don't think about it much because I know the people who maintain and fly our aircraft (mostly). I would question more a ratty old 182

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!

[LoudDan 0]

Being an A&P mechanic and a skydiver, I place aircraft maintenance pretty damn high on my list, like right there around container and canopy. I usually walk around any aircraft and look for anything indicative of shoddy maintenance (bad patch jobs, oil leaks, hydraulic leaks, nicks in the prop blades, tires, landing gear, shit like that) this little walk around has gotten me some extra green on my account an some new friends around the DZ.

Coming soon to a bowl of Wheaties near you!!

[mrhoop 0]

aircraft maintenance is part of the safety process in the skydiving industry. It is very important.

[jsaxton 0]

As long as it gets to 3K, it's all good!

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

As long as it gets to 3K, it's all good!

Well said. Hooyah!

Forty-two

[Aviatrr 0]

There are several DZ's I won't jump at due to poor A/C maintenance and/or unsafe pilots. I'm probably more critical than many since I fly for a living, and have flown just about every type of aircraft that is used as a jump plane. I don't really care much if the operation is flying an airplane illegally because something is not operating(such as certain gauges, lights, instruments, etc) because EVERY airplane has something on it that could cause it to be grounded....but, I do care if they are flying it in an UNSAFE condition. As you know, there is a big difference between illegal and unsafe.

Mike

[wilmshurst 0]

I would have thought that few skydivers would know whether or not an aircraft was unsafe (until the poo hit the propellor, that is).

I guess you could pre-flight the a/c and check the manual for scheduled maintenance, but that would require that you knew what to look for and you could be accused of being abit of a geek. Also, even pilots must rely on unseen work done by mechanics, etc - you can't check everything.

And yeah, as long as it gets to a jumpable alti, it's all good!!

The only thing worse than a cold toilet seat is a warm toilet seat.

[tbrown 26]

Quote

As long as it gets to 3K, it's all good!

I'm more concerned about getting to 1 grand, the rest is all icing on the cake.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[rmsmith 1]

I put safe aircraft at the top of the list. If it costs more, so be it. And I'm not going to be a DZ "turn coat" over one or two dollars extra to jump a nice turbine airplane.

[jsaxton 0]

1 Grand is min, but I'd rather use my main so I'm sure I can can get my swoop on.

[quade 4]

Want me to come down and do a VCIP on your DZ?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[FrogNog 1]

Quote

Want me to come down and do a VCIP on your DZ?

Is that something GwTs do?

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

As long as it gets to 3K, it's all good!

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


I'm more concerned about getting to 1 grand, the rest is all icing on the cake.

"NTSB Identification: MIA97FA173 . The docket is stored in the (offline) NTSB Imaging System.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, May 25, 1997 in HOMESTEAD, FL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/6/98
Aircraft: Cessna 205, registration: N8214Z
Injuries: 6 Fatal, 1 Uninjured.
A passenger-parachutist stated she had exited the cabin and was on the jump platform preparing to jump from about 3,500 feet when the left wing and nose dropped and the aircraft entered a spin to the left. After an unknown number of revolutions she jumped from the aircraft and deployed her chute. She observed the aircraft continue in a spin until ground impact. She stated the engine sounded normal prior to the aircraft entering the spin. She also stated that the aircraft appeared to be flying at a slower than normal speed as she exited the aircraft based on less wind forces acting on her. Postcrash examination of the aircraft structure, flight controls, engine, and propeller showed no evidence of precrash mechanical failure or malfunction. A review of the pilot's logbook and flight training records from the university where he attended showed no record of his having performed spins or spin recoveries in an aircraft. The records did show that he received ground instruction in spin entry and spin recovery techniques. FAA regulations require that a private or commercial pilot have received ground instruction in spin entry and spin recovery techniques but does not require the private or commercial pilot to have performed spin entry and spin recovery techniques in an aircraft.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot-in-command's failure to maintain airspeed as he slowed for a parachutist to jump from the aircraft, and his failure to apply spin recovery emergency procedures prior to ground impact. Contributing to the accident was the pilot-in-command's lack of training in spin recovery emergency procedures in an aircraft, and the FAA's failure to require that a pilot demonstrate spin entry and spin recovery techniques in an aircraft."

"NTSB Identification: IAD99FA043 . The docket is stored in the (offline) NTSB Imaging System.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, May 09, 1999 in CELINA, OH
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/2/00
Aircraft: Cessna 205, registration: N8157Z
Injuries: 6 Fatal.
The airplane departed on a parachuting flight with 5 parachutists on board. Several witnesses reported hearing the airplane during climb out. Each witness described smooth engine noise, brief 'sputtering,' and then a total loss of engine power. The airplane descended straight ahead at the same pitch attitude, then the nose dropped, a parachutist exited, and the airplane entered a spiraling descent. Two more jumpers exited the airplane before ground contact. A review of jump logs and conversation with the operator revealed the pilot flew three lifts of jumpers to approximately 10,000 feet. Each lift was approximately 30 minutes in duration. The accident flight occurred during the fourth lift. The airplane departed on its first lift with 30 gallons of fuel. No fuel was dispensed into the airplane between the first and fourth lift. At the scene, 8 ounces of fuel were drained from the selected tank, and a leak test revealed no leaks. Examination revealed that all fuel system components were operational and there were no pre-impact anomalies. A request for a jump club SOP revealed that no such document existed. The club operator reported that club operations were at his direction.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

was the pilot's failure to refuel the airplane which resulted in fuel exhaustion and a loss of engine power. Also causal to the accident was the pilot's failure to maintain aircraft control after the power loss. A factor in the accident was a lack of published operational or safety procedures for the parachute club and the operator's failure to verify the pilot's medical qualifications."

Derek

[Paige 0]

I think its really important since my guy is the one normally landing the plane when I jump out.

Tunnel Pink Mafia Delegate
www.TunnelPinkMafia.com

[Speer 0]

Buzz,

If I know it's unsafe... I ain't getting in. I may be crazy, but I try not to be stupid. The rub comes in hazards unseen or unknown to the general skydiving community. Certainly A&Ps have a leg up on recognizing hazards, the rest of us have to look for clues in the rest of the operation to determine if safety is of as much concern as operating. And I don't mean that the equipment has to be brand new, just that the people running the show have to be held to high standards.

Another way is word of mouth. I got recommendations from people I trusted.

Your concern for the safety of jumpers is one of the many reasons I'm so happy to jump at SDSD!

Thanks Buzz.

Russ

Generally, it is your choice; will your life serve as an example... or a warning?

[pilotdave 0]

I'm a pilot and I happen to work in the aviation safety field, but I still just have to assume that the planes I jump from are properly maintained. If I KNEW they weren't, I wouldn't jump there. But most of the time, I just have to assume. Many of the planes I've flown in (for non-skydiving purposes) look like they're held together with duct tape when in fact they're perfectly safe (as if that's possible) and properly maintained. Obviously we can't just go by looks.

I know some pretty basic things to look for, which I check on every plane I fly before getting in. But when I'm jumping, I rarely get a chance to take a close look at the jump plane before getting in. Even if I did have a chance, I have to assume the pilot flying it knows a whole lot more about it than I do.

So yeah, properly maintained aircraft is important to me, but I also assume the aircraft I jump from are properly maintained unless I have some reason not to. Right now I jump at a club. One great thing about that is I know there are no secrets. The plane is leased and proper maintenance and use of the aircraft are terms of the lease.

Dave

[TomSpoon 4]

Maintenance? Who needs maintenance? We're skydiving for Christs' sake. Sport death remember? A dangerous old airplane and an inexperienced testosterone poisoned pilot just add to the thrill. Hey ,when the grim reaper comes calling their ain't nothing your gonna do about it.

[Deuce 1]

I feel better knowing my pilot is a badass engine failure-on-board=with-skydivers kind of pilot. That said, I don't want the engine or engines to fail due to bullshit failure to maintain.

I am completely ready to "bail on reserve" at a grand. But a KingAir can climb on one engine, and I expect Derek The Great to put me over the DZ at 3 grand regardless.

Our pilots and our aircraft rip. BTFU and let them command their aircraft.

• Quote

[TomSpoon 4]

Quote

I feel better knowing my pilot is a badass engine failure-on-board=with-skydivers kind of pilot. That said, I don't want the engine or engines to fail due to bullshit failure to maintain.


Our pilots and our aircraft rip. BTFU and let them command their aircraft.

Is this a new certificate or rating? "engine failure-on-board=with-skydivers kind of pilot"
What is "BTFU" ?

[Kris 0]

We have some pretty exceptional pilots at my DZ and I do trust them if the shit were to ever hit the fan.

As for maintenance, our two jump planes are well looked after.

Quote

What is "BTFU" ?

Back The Fuck Up.

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[Aviatrr 0]

Quote

But a KingAir can climb on one engine, and I expect Derek The Great to put me over the DZ at 3 grand regardless.

Don't be so sure about that. There is no legal requirement for a twin engine aircraft to climb on one engine unless it is over 12,500lbs or a jet(neither of which apply to the KingAir series, except for the 300, 350, and a couple of ex-military 200's). If the aircraft is at MGTOW, and it's warm out....don't expect that remaining engine to do anything but extend the "gliding" distance.

Quote

BTFU and let them command their aircraft.

Definitely agree....just don't be under any misconceptions that the airplane WILL climb after an engine failure....it MIGHT, but is not required to.

Mike

[PhreeZone 20]

>There is no legal requirement for a twin engine aircraft to climb on one engine unless it is over 12,500lbs or a jet

Which commonly used jump planes are required to have this? I know the Casa is way over that weight limit, is an Otter? How about planes like the Skyvan?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 3,070]

>But a KingAir can climb on one engine . . .

Note that that may or may not be true. The aircraft may not be certificated to be able to climb on one engine. Or it may be so certificated when new, but as turbines age their power output drops off a bit. And sadly many operators overload their aircraft.

In addition, in some cases having a second engine can be more of a liability than an asset. It's often said that the second engine serves the purpose of getting the pilot to the scene of the accident more quickly. In a study of light twin accidents a while back, it was determined that had the pilot immediately shut down the good engine after the other engine failed, the survivability of the resulting landing would go up (based on survivability of single engine airplane loss-of-power landings.)