NTSB statistics compare to Jump Operations 2001

[diverdriver 5]

Thought I would post this in both forums.
After looking at the statistics for aircraft accidents and comparing them to Jump Plane accidents it doesn't look good for 2001.
These statistics are reported by Accidents per 100,000 hours of flying. Talking with USPA it is estimated that skydiving does about 100,000 hours of flying per year.
General Aviation (which skydiving is a part of) is the real comparison.
Airlines: 0.2 accidents per 100,000 hours of flying
Charter Part 135: 2.1 per 100k
General Aviation: 6.56 per 100k
Number of Jump Plane accidents I have on my site: 13
One is a report of a smoke jumper plane so that is not tallied in the over all total for civilian sport jumping.
So, I have 12 accident reports for an estimated 100,000 hours of flying. That is almost DOUBLE the rate of all of general aviation.
Fatal accidents:
General Avaition: 1.22 per 100,000 hours of flying
Jump Planes: 2 per 100,000 hours of flying
Now, one of those fatal reports is the fatal mid-air of a jumper hitting another jump plane. Some may argue this inclusion because the aircraft was not substantially damaged (according to NTSB rules) but there was a death involving an aircraft so I do include it.
If you care to see the reports I have listed on my site click HERE
Chris Schindler
ATP/CFII
D-19012
www.DiverDriver.com

[Snowflake 0]

Any speculation as to any possible reasons for such a large discrepancy. Is it possible that because jump planes are taking of and landing so much more per 100k hours then General Aviation?
JG

[diverdriver 5]

That is one theory. But running out of gas and landing off the airport seems to be a reoccuring trend. We are not following the basic requirements of Part 91 regulations. Fuel reserves. The reports are there for all to read. You can see them on my site and see for yourself what is going on and where.
Chris

[Hooknswoop 19]

Thanks Chris, I have wondered how skydiving ops compare to GA. How much does high gross weights, aft CG's, pressure for fast turnaround times, aircraft modifications, maintainance, and pilot training contribute to that statistic? In your opinion, what change/improvement would have the most effect on reducing jumpship accidents? Do you think that change/improvement to the way things are done is realistically achievable/implmentable?
Hook

[diverdriver 5]

I believe it is totally possible. We all talk about how we don't want the FAA to mandate Part 135. I agree. But if we were to adopt the rules of Part 135 we would improve. We could adopt these rules all on our own. If we followed the pilot duty time and rest requirements. If we followed the initial training and recurrent training requirements we would improve. And if operators were really checked to see if they were complying with a regular maintenance schedule we would improve.
But another thing I see is pilots' attitudes. They know the regulations on maintenance yet accept what is being done. They allow themselves to be pressured into some of these situations. We need to give these pilots the confidence to stand up for what is right. I see it often enough to know that it is not isolated.
Chris