Independence dz deaths - they could have been preven
Ankh469
Do any of you realize the poor taste in judgment you exercise arguing over this
tragedy. This was a terrible tragedy that may or may not have been avoidable,
we may never know. I firmly believe that if anyone had any actual “facts”
about poor maintenance or problems with the aircraft prior to this accident are
also responsible. I am not referring to people who are disgruntled with the
staff or other skydivers at that drop zone, but people that had actual
evidence.
This thread needs to be dropped or at least quit the bullshit bickering about
“I know this or that”. Remember all of us are involved in a sport where death
is very possible. How would any of you feel if this happened at your drop zone
to your friends or family? Then to top it all off you see a thread like this
where people are acting this way.
All of our thoughts should be towards these people and their friends and
families.
Blue skies, those that have gone before us will forever be in our hearts.
Craig
Brian Rudd
Well put little brother, well put.
Rudd-man
Jeffrey Greer
I'm forwarding this for my friend.
>Perry
>Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 11:53:35
>From: PERRY CHUTE <perry...@usa.net>
>To: br...@bellsouth.net
>Subject: Independence Deaths
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Craig or whoever posted this, I must say something about your post. Do you realize the poor taste in
>judgement made by certain members of the Greater Kansas City Skydiving Club owner and operator in
>purposefully chosing to operate in the manner in which he has been operating the past few years? What
>about that? Let me tell you something, this "thread" or "issue" or "debate" is far from over. In fact it is just
>beginning. The thread posted by JGREER was completely correct.
>The "facts" regarding the maintenance of the aircraft and the safety of the DZ do, I repeat, do exist and
>WILL, I repaet, Will be made known to the public hopefully soon. I have and know the facts from a very
>reliable source within the investgative body itself. Until the investigation is closed however, the facts cannot
>be discussed. In-so-far-as whether or not we will ever know the cause of the accident, we already know
>exactly what caused it. And in response to Mr. Welch's post to JGREER telling him that the NTSB takes
>over a year to fully investigate an accident, well that is not true. They already determined the cause of the
>accident and the FAA has a pretty good idea about the full sequence of events including why the jumpers
>stayed on board when there was ample altitude and time to evacuate.
>As far as you saying that the people that had info regarding the safety of the aircraft being responsible, well
>let me advise you that some of those people did make a concerted effort to alert the appropriate authorities
>and get things changed. In response to Mr. Welch's reply to JGREER about the FAA complaints being
>investigated and found to be false or fabricated, that is NOT true. They were never, I repeat never found to
>be fabricated or false. There were many other factors involved in those investigations, part of which will be
>revealed at the time the rest of the FACTS about this are revealed. So do not say that there were people
>knowledgeable of safety issues that did not speak up because they did! This accident does involve some of
>my friends and to an extent my family and it will be seen to it that the full truth about the previous
>complaints that were not acted upon properly and the facts and evidence of the crash are revealed so that
>justice and due process can be had. Hopefully, a possible criminal negligance conviction may also come out
>of this.
>This IS about friends and family. Yes we are in a sport where death is a possibilty, but there is no reason that
>this accident could not have been EASILY prevented. A great many have been sitting on the sidelines almost
>waiting for something like this to happen and hoping it wouldn't. It was only a matter of time before it did.
>Now that it has, someone will have to accept the responsibilty for basically killing six people. Those of us
>that know and understand the "whole" truth are truly appauled by the accident and the bogus, mickey-mouse
>"cover-up" that was fed to the media. That's okay though because when the truth comes out, it will nullify
>the smokescreen. I hope this has helped clear at least some of the ambiguities and the mystery. I am sorry
>that not everything can be revealed at this time, but anything worth having or knowing is worth waiting for.
>Below is the only official contact info I can offer at this time about the accident until the investigation is
>complete and closed:
>(an excerpt from an e-mail I received from a reliable source)
>If people want to find facts for themselves they will have to contact KC FSDO-50 (816) 891-2100
>and request it and envoke the freedom of information act! If not the feds will say nothing! If they
>did they could be sued by GKCSC! Also they can contact NTSB at (630) 377-8177 and speak with
>Frank Gattolin and request info and again invoke the freedom of information act.
>*** End of Info. ***
>Mr. Rudd, this is not my terminal so I cannot post this on rec.skydiving myself. If you want to, feel free to
>forward under this name if you like. Thank you for your concern.
>Perry
>******** YOU WROTE ********
>> Do any of you realize the poor taste in judgment you exercise rguing over this
>> tragedy. This was a terrible tragedy that may or may not have been avoidable,
>> we may never know. I firmly believe that if anyone had any actual “facts”
>> about poor maintenance or problems with the aircraft prior to this accident are
>> also responsible. I am not referring to people who are disgruntled with the
>> staff or other skydivers at that drop zone, but people that had actual
>> evidence.
>>
>> This thread needs to be dropped or at least quit the bullshit bickering about
>> “I know this or that”. Remember all of us are involved in a sport where death
>> is very possible. How would any of you feel if this happened at your drop zone
>> to your friends or family? Then to top it all off you see a thread like this
>> where people are acting this way.
>>
>> All of our thoughts should be towards these people and their friends and
>> families.
>>
>> Blue skies, those that have gone before us will forever be in our hearts.
>>
>> Craig
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jgr...@umr.edu
senior computer science student, University of MO - Rolla
PGP key at: http://www.umr.edu/~jgreer/pgp_key.html
A-27264
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Win 98 Delivery Day Approaches! Microsoft says Win 98
fixes more than 5,000 bugs in Win 95. NOW THAT IS INNOVATION!
-- Take closer look at Microsoft: http://www.vcnet.com/bms
Ankh469
Perry, Jeff
My response was not written to say anything either way about this thread. I
believe it is in poor taste to post something that you know will cause this
type of bickering. If you have information from a reliable source, that’s
fine. You know that posting statements like that and then saying that you cant
revile your source and have no way of backing your information will start
everyone arguing.
My intention was to stop the petty arguing until something official can be
said. I believe that the arguing is in poor taste and that needs to be
stopped. All I can say is I hope what you say is true, and I will try to call
to get this information released. I will also encourage everyone else to do
the same.
I hope this clears up my intention to respond to this thread
Blue Skies
Craig
Jeffrey Greer
On 2 Apr 1998 00:06:56 GMT, ank...@aol.com (Ankh469) wrote:
>Do any of you realize the poor taste in judgment you exercise arguing over this
>tragedy. This was a terrible tragedy that may or may not have been avoidable,
>we may never know. I firmly believe that if anyone had any actual “facts”
>about poor maintenance or problems with the aircraft prior to this accident are
>also responsible. I am not referring to people who are disgruntled with the
>staff or other skydivers at that drop zone, but people that had actual
>evidence.
>
>This thread needs to be dropped or at least quit the bullshit bickering about
>“I know this or that”. Remember all of us are involved in a sport where death
>is very possible. How would any of you feel if this happened at your drop zone
>to your friends or family? Then to top it all off you see a thread like this
>where people are acting this way.
>
>All of our thoughts should be towards these people and their friends and
>families.
>
>Blue skies, those that have gone before us will forever be in our hearts.
>
>Craig
>
I'm also adding my reply:
You are showing poor judgement. Just because little proof has been made
available to the public yet does not mean no one should be warned about the
alleged criminal negligence. People should be aware of these ALLEGED facts so
that they can make their own judgement for the time being. Don't you find it
suspicious that this dz was not USPA certified?
Six people are dead now. It would be much poorer taste to let more people die
because we have to wait for the results of the investigation to be released.
BTW: I am not biased towards Independence or their other main competing dz -
MRVS. The main drop zone I jump at is Quantum Leap in Sullivan, MO. The reason
I am involved is because my hometown is in Kansas City and I have family
involved who jump at Independence.
I would like anybody to state any valid reason as to why I might have a bias
towards either drop zone. Can anyone prove that I am some asshole just trying
to smear Independence's reputation? If I was I wouldn't have used my real name
and staked my reputation in from of thousands of people. After the facts come
out you will realize that I do not make charges like this unless I am
well-informed and 100% sure that they are true.
TooyT
>From: jgr...@umr.edu (Jeffrey Greer) Wrote:>On 2 Apr 1998 00:06:56 GMT,
ank...@aol.com (Ankh469) >wrote: Do any of you realize the poor taste in
judgment you >exercise arguing over this
Hey ladys this is about skydiving, if you want good taste check
with the golfers they dress better, have styled hair and club rules,
fockers even huv little aligators on their shirts. ;-P Snuffy
RHallifax
<<the golfers they dress better, have styled hair and club rules,
fockers even huv little aligators on their shirts. ;-P Snuffy>>
Hey Snuf:
I'm heading south this month... Sunny Florida. Been told I May even get one of
them gators on my foot if my accuracy doesn't improve. Does that count? Will
I be officially civilized then? Or do I need to have tea and crumpets up at
the club house? (I don't use brillcream, if you need to know.)
TooyT
>From: rhal...@aol.com (RHallifax) Wrote:
***************************************************
Well I hate to tell yo this but Florida is where all the Texas RW
gods go cuz Georgia is too Anal and inbred, so yer gonna go
back to Canada with the Mark of Cain on yer shirt, have fun &
blue skys, be safe and watch them Florida planes & dames cuz
they will both go down on yah if you doan jump first ;-) Snuffy
Avi8oR4u
To whom it may concern,
People have been wondering about the facts of the Independence crash. At
the request of Mr. Bryan Welch, the S&TA at the Greater Kansas City Skydiving
Club, myself and several other skydivers have begun our own investigation.
What we have uncovered and what follows in this post can all be disclosed under
the freedom of information act.
and uncovered the following items on the existing aircraft, all of which I
currently have in my possesion. Some of the worst infractions found are; on
507SD (cessna 182)
1: loose coaxial cable in the cabin
2: prop spinner cracked and stop drilled
3: vacuum pump hose to firewall too short
4: saftey wire missing from oil filler port assembly
5: compass correction card mssing
6: inspection covers missing on flaps (tops)
7: top side right elevator drooped
8: seat back stops missing
9: rigging of the left flap not aligned
10: oil screen cap not saftey wired
11: P-Lead wires not proper size no shielding and don't fit nut contact
12: no altenator ground strap to engine case
13: pilot side door hinge not adequate
14: weight and balance inadequate
15: pilot checklists missing
16: no A/C identification plate per FAR45.11D
17: A/C has extreme amount of debris at rudder pedals and in the belly around
control cable tunnels and pulleys
On A\C 504SD the following were found
1: left door not openable from the inside
2: spinner cracked and stop drilled
3: broken clamp on carb heat shroud
4: #2 cylinder base oil leak
5: #2 cylinder exhaust gasket blown
6: #2,4,6 cylinders rocker cover gaskets inadequate
7: STC for oil filter
8: oil leaks
9: new baffle behind spinner
10: #1 cylinder exhaust leak and flange
11: oil hoses right side chaffing
12: generator holes wallowed out
13: #2,6 lower ignition leads insulation gone at barrel nut
This was a list of the problems found by the inspectors, and obtainable through
the FAA.
The actual facts of the plane crash are as follows.From take-off the plane
climed to a altititude of 4,500 feet AGL. The first transponder ident after the
pilot reported an emergency was directly over Independence Memorial Airport,
class E airspace. This fact is confirmed through Air Traffic Control based in
Olathe. If you call ask for specifics.
The witnesses at the Grain Valley Airport Unicom station heard the pilot
radio in an electrical problem and watched the aircraft approach the Grain
Valley Airport with black and white smoke coming from the engine cowling with
orange flames. The pilot still had radio contact and a fully functioning
transponder both of which are electrically driven. The aircraft was over
congested terrain. Which leads to the theory that the pilot was trying to
cover his ass by not reporting engine difficulty, or a fire and didn't allow
the skydivers on board to make an emergency exit over the congested terrain.
All of which could be grounds for an FAA investigation if reported.
On post impact investigation the NTSB found 506SD to have a broken piston
rod, loose rocker arm cover, missing oil filler tube and barely any amount of
oil left in the engine. This leads to the theory that the various items were
either not tightened securely or not safety wired. These facts can be
confirmed from the NTSB preliminary report and Frank Gattolin the NTSB
investigator in Chicago IL.
The victims of the crash did not all die from the initial impact. Three
of the six victims died from smoke inhalation--Eric Rueff, Julie Douglas, Kenny
Buckley. The other three-- Dave Snyder, John Schuman, Marion Rudder died from
smoke inhalation and blunt trauma. We all know that if these folks had left
the aircraft at a higher altitude (between 4500' and 1000') their odds of
survival would be greatly increased. The fact that the victims suffered or
died from smoke inhalation can be comfirmed from the Jackson County Coroners
Office.
These are the facts we uncovered in our investigation. These facts are
not hearsay or rumors. We are presenting these facts, because we lost friends
in this accident. Skydivers are always calling for more self-policing, well
here it is. We all need to do our part to keep the sport safe, and to keep the
government having to intervene. We feel that this is an accident that was
negligently brought about.
Everyone who has jumped at Independence knows that Ron Sharp has done
unsupervised maintenance on all of these aircraft. Sharp is NOT an A/P
mechanic. We also know that Marion Rudders wife has his logbook, which shows
that Marion performed two emergency exits out of N506SD in the previous two
months, due to engine failure.
Yet the question still remains why are people not asking more questions,
instead of just taking Sharp's word for the truth.
One more note, this is a club that had to voluntarily resign its USPA
membership for not having poperly rated instructors. This organization has also
had several letters sent to the FAA about its reputation. Why weren't these
leads followed up on? Who Knows? The fact remains that six people are now
dead, and only now are people beggining to ask questions. It seems like others
accurately predicted that this tradgedy was going to happen. It is time to take
responsibility for yourself, and make sure that you jump at a safe and
responsible DZ.
Blue Skies,
The informed.
rick nelson
Avi8oR4u wrote:
> To whom it may concern,
> People have been wondering about the facts of the Independence crash. At
> the request of Mr. Bryan Welch, the S&TA at the Greater Kansas City Skydiving
> Club, myself and several other skydivers have begun our own investigation.
> What we have uncovered and what follows in this post can all be disclosed under
> the freedom of information act.
snip a lot of tech stuff that sounds impressive but, since I'm not an A/P either
will not comment on.
> . Why weren't these
> leads followed up on? Who Knows? The fact remains that six people are now
> dead, and only now are people beggining to ask questions. It seems like others
> accurately predicted that this tradgedy was going to happen. It is time to take
> responsibility for yourself, and make sure that you jump at a safe and
> responsible DZ.
> Blue Skies,
> The informed.
Why are you afraid to disclose your name? Possible retribution from the alledged
guilty party(s)?
rick
bil...@qualcomm.com
In article <199804170407...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
avi8...@aol.com (Avi8oR4u) wrote:
>Skydivers are always calling for more self-policing, well
>here it is. We all need to do our part to keep the sport safe, and to keepthe
>government having to intervene. We feel that this is an accident that was
>negligently brought about.
it's still tough to take anonymous reports seriously. however, it is
good to see some facts (at least, what comes as close to fact as anything else
that gets posted here) rather than plain flames on this topic. self-policing
is important. and while i tend to not believe everything i read here, the
items listed above are at least good starting points for people who would like
to ask questions of the DZO, S+TA and aircraft mechanic at this DZ.
-bill von
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
I2IPHIL
>snip a lot of tech stuff that sounds impressive but, since I'm not an A/P
>either
>will not comment on.
you are counting on the plane not to kill just as much as yuor rig to save you.
it would be a good idea to gain some knowage about the plane
email me and i will send the document we have and frank gattolin's, the ntsb
invetigators, phone # so you can confirm this if would like to>snip a lot of
Wildthing
On 17 Apr 1998 04:07:56 GMT, avi8...@aol.com (Avi8oR4u) wrote:
>To whom it may concern,
> People have been wondering about the facts of the Independence crash. At
>the request of Mr. Bryan Welch, the S&TA at the Greater Kansas City Skydiving
>Club,
I presume that this post was made by Tony Robbins since it has his
address on it.
I would like to state categorically, that while I am extremely
interested in any and all facts about this incident, at no time did I
request Mr. Tony Robbins to conduct any kind of investigation into the
crash.
Bryan Welch
S&TA CE26
D9212
Avi8oR4u
Yes, Bryan Welch is correct. Bryan never directly asked me to do an
investigation. However, in the post to Jgreer, that was made March 29 he asked
anyone with facts to come foward. These facts were compiled by several
skydivers including myself. The reason we collected this information is
because we have frequented the Greater Kansas City Skydiving Club and jump at
this drop zone on occasion. We needed to find out for ourselves if this was a
safe place to jump. We found that this is an unsafe environment due to the
condition of the aircraft, and other specifics. We were so astonished at the
details that we found it appropriate to inform as much of the skydiving
community as possible. So that the skydiving community can make their own
educated decisions.
These facts are not meant to be thrown into anybodies faces; nor do they
have malicious intent. They are mearly the facts. I am willing to work closely
with anyone who might be interested in uncovering all the details however, I
think that the facts that we have uncovered are only the tip of the iceberg .
Actions that are reported to be taking place now are only a small portion of
the final outcome from this incident. I feel that the deaths of six people is
unacceptable. We must provide the facts and information that is needed by the
living skydivers to make a knowledgable and informed decision at places where
they may jump. If this knowledge saves the life of only one person or prevents
an injury, then these people and my friends did not die in vain.
Sincerely,
Tony Robbins
Scott Schnabel
We found that this is an unsafe environment due to the
>condition of the aircraft, and other specifics. We were so astonished at
the
>details that we found it appropriate to inform as much of the skydiving
>community as possible.
So...when did you discover these alleged problems? Did you know this info
before or after the crash? If yer tryin to be a hero I think you're a bit
late.
Scott
I2IPHIL
scott you are right. we are all to late.
i am one of the people who wrote the letter posted by tony robbins. my name is
phil carey. brain and tony, we are friends and this is not about us. it is
about finding the truth behind what really happened. i wish we could bring them
back. no matter want we do they are still gone. but i agree that they should
not die invien. eric is and was a very good person and lets not loose tutch of
the people we lost. in wrighting the letter we did not mean anything twoard
brain. brian is a very good person and i am greatful he was not on the
plane.the facts that we dug up need to be let out. any one who wants more info
e-mail me at i2i...@aol.com. we need to find the truth together and not try to
run a political war that is not ours in the first place. remember we are
skydivers and friends so lets keep it that way. i think they would have wanted
it that way
"2-i" phillip carey
a- i cant rember
b-i dont want to look it up
c-something or other
d-i did not want to spend the money
ratings-hell i just want to fall on my head
(students spook me)
Robert Romey
Right on Tony!!!
To everyone out there I must say that this news does not surprise me in the
least. I have jumped at The Greater Kansas City Skydiving Club before, and
the occasional thought of "how safe are these planes?" had crossed my mind
numerous times. However, in the back of my mind I had always thought, "hey
they can't be that bad, they have regulations they have to follow." This
information, which I have in my hand, and am trying to download now to put
it on the net, is shocking. Everyone saw the list that was posted, but the
fact that the oil filler tube came off because it wasn't saftey wired is
insane!!! Then to learn that it was like that on another one of their planes
is outrageous.
Skydivers have got to learn to raise their voice and question their
DZO's and S&TA's. We have got to become more aware, and if we see a pattern
forming, we must do more to stop it before the problem gets to big, and more
people die. I use to have the utmost respect for Ron Sharp, Greater KC
Skydiving Club owner. It use to be that if he told me a plane was safe I
thoroughly believed him, and climbed onboard. Now, I have lost all the
respect for Mr. Sharp. I also have no intention of ever taking someone's
word as law when it comes to maintenance. I have discovered that their is
only one person responsible for my safety, and that is me.
You are probably asking yourself, how can I tell if a plane is in good
shape, I am not a mechanic. Well this is true I'm not either, but know who
is working on the plane, how often does it break down, what do they do for
their repairs, how does the plane look cosmetically, is there more oil on
the floor then could possibly be in the plane. Look at all these things,
then decide from there. We can all make educated guesses.
Back to the first point I made, Tony, and Phil, you guys have some
courage to come forward. The sport needs more open-minded concerned people
to help it along. Tony was one of my first jumpmasters, and the main reason
I am still in this sport. I have the utmost respect for Tony, as he is
probably one of the most concerned, level-headed, educated, and honest
persons I know.
Well got to go, did 15 jumps this weekend, and I am tired!!
PS I will try to get the information posted here by this time tomorrow.
Rob Romey
Atmospheric Dolphin #24
D-18619
spectre
Sir,
Your information is very compelling. However please advise us as to where
the information came from. The FOIA does not apply to an ongoing
investigation. Anyone can do maintenance on an airplane as long as it is
inspected and signed off by an A&P or A&I. Who was the A&P or A&I that did
so? Are they involved in the investigation? What were the caused of the
previous "emergency" exits that were made? Does it show in the aircraft
maintenance logs, and if so again who was the A&P? Are you sure approach
control is located in Olathe KS or is that just Kansas City Center? The
"congested" area you talk about, where is that between Independence Airport
and Grain Valley? If Bryan requested that you do the investigation then
again why do you not provide your name and experience?
I do hope we get to the truth about this terrible accident. But the USPA
has nothing to do with it. Do you have to be a USPA drop zone or USPA
rated to skydive in the United States? Skydivers are not like the pilots
that fly them around, they do not have to meet such rigorous standards to
get a license so what does it mean? Were any of the "violations" that were
found on the aircraft items that would ground the aircraft? Or a
combination of such items?
Lets get to the truth, please. It just appears that the old DZ battles
still rage on even when there is such a great loss as this. As a pilot I
am sickened with the rumor mill that has been created. Honor our dead and
seek the truth through the correct avenues. Respect your fellow skydivers
and their families even if you don't respect the other drop zone or
yourself.
My prayers to all.
Spectre
TooyT
>From: "spectre" <spect...@yahoo.com> Wrote:
he wuz gitting on sumbody else ;-P
>seek the truth through the correct avenues. Respect your fellow >skydivers
and their families even if you don't respect the other >drop zone or yourself.
My prayers to all. Spectre
I CONCUR KID, even if thay are CIVILIAN LEGS they jump, SO THEY SHUD receive
sum respect . i juz came back from
Columbus Georgia and the dignity and respect shown on the
AIRBORNE & RANGER WALKs hi-lite the difference in attiudes that Skydivers and
Military jumpers hold for other jumpers
Makes me ashamed be a USPA "D" ;-) Snuffy
Wendy Faulkner
In article <01bd6c61$053c3020$d7a6dad0@default>,
spectre <spect...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Lets get to the truth, please. It just appears that the old DZ battles
>still rage on even when there is such a great loss as this. As a pilot I
>am sickened with the rumor mill that has been created. Honor our dead and
>and their families even if you don't respect the other drop zone or
>yourself.
>
I haven't been to the drop zone in Independence, but I do know several
people there, including one who was killed in the crash. I talked
extensively about it to Bryan Welch this past weekend. And after
reading what has been said on rec.skydiving, and talking to Bryan, I
have to say I would absolutely no problem visiting this drop zone,
jumping my ass off. I would have no problem sending friends there to
jump, do tandems, or whatever.
From what I can tell of this picture - there's really bad dz politics,
and one drop zone is trying to bring down another. And that's a damn
shame.
Wen
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=- Wendy Faulkner =- We are Microsoft. Resistance is
=- faul...@eco.utexas.edu =- futile. Prepare to be assimilated.
=- D-17441 NCB#3 =-
Tina Marie
In article <199804170407...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Avi8oR4u <avi8...@aol.com> wrote:
>currently have in my possesion. Some of the worst infractions found are; on
>507SD (cessna 182)
You know, if these are the worst things that they found, I certainly
wouldn't have any problems flying in these aircraft.
Don't get me wrong. Most of these _are_ violations of the FARs. Very few
of them have any impact on safety.
>1: loose coaxial cable in the cabin
Probably from a radio that was pulled out. Not any big deal - we just
looked inside the panel of the Tripacer, and we have _tons_ of wires
that don't go anywhere. And it was just signed off by an IA a few
weeks ago. Every plane has these.
>2: prop spinner cracked and stop drilled
If it was well done, not any big deal. If you're talking about
the "metal pointy thing" that sticks out in front of the prop, it's not
structural. I've also heard the metal piece that the prop bolts onto
called a spinner, and since the poster obviously didn't post these
verbatim, I'm not sure.
>3: vacuum pump hose to firewall too short
Oh, gee, he might lose his vacuum system in flight! It's only used
to run the gyroscopes, and you only need those in instrument conditions.
This would bug me if it was a charter plane, but jumping isn't done
in instrument conditions, and it's not any big deal.
>4: saftey wire missing from oil filler port assembly
Note, they didn't say anything was loose. Just that it wasn't safety
wired. There is quite possibly a _reason_ they didn't safety wire
it - legal != safe.
>5: compass correction card mssing
Oh, gee, so now the pilot doesn't know that the compass reads 3 degress
off when he's flying a heading of 175! This is _trivial_ - most
planes have correction cards so faded you can't read them. But that's
legal.
>6: inspection covers missing on flaps (tops)
Inspection covers pop off in flight all the time. No big deal. Probably
should have been caught during preflight, but not any big deal. If it
was on the flaps themselves, a lot of pilots preflight with the flaps
up. What's the worse case scenerio? The flaps are weakened and fail.
Any pilot that can't land without flaps should be taken out and
forced to get some dual in a Cub.
>7: top side right elevator drooped
I'm sure that this what the report said - "drooped" is a highly technical
term. You don't say that there were any structural problems with the
elevator (and what model 182 had both "top" and "bottom" elevators? How
can the "top" "droop" but not the bottom?). This _sounds_ like a sheet
metal ding. Again, not much of a big deal.
>8: seat back stops missing
This is an old Airworthyness Directive on Cessna's. I personally
wouldn't fly any Cessna without the seat back stops, but if the pilot
was comfortable without them, I'd ride in it. Here's the problem.
Cessna makes _crappy_ seat tracks and latches, and every once in a while,
the seat will slide all the way back on takeoff. If the pilot has
the plane trimmed, he'll just slide the seat back forward, and the
plane will fly itself for a few seconds while he gets settled. The
problem came with novice pilots, who had a tendency to grab the yoke to
keep from sliding back, and would then stall the plane on takeoff.
If the pilot is aware of the problem, it's not a real big deal -
_especially_ in a jumpship, where you're likely to have a skydiver up
against that seat, keeping it from sliding back.
>9: rigging of the left flap not aligned
More flap problems. I bet you can't show me a skydiving plane that's
100% correctly rigged - if the left flap is the only thing out, you're
doing great!
>10: oil screen cap not saftey wired
More safety wire. This could have been an oversight, or could have
been intentionally left off for easier oil changes. Again, notice
that nobody said it was _loose_ - just not safetly wired. The FAA
_loves_ safety wire.
>11: P-Lead wires not proper size no shielding and don't fit nut contact
This bugs me more then all the other stuff put together - but,
if the P-leads fail, the magnetos will fail _on_, so you won't notice
a problem until runup the next time. I don't know enough about the
P-leads to say if this could cause a short/fire. I don't think so,
though.
>12: no altenator ground strap to engine case
Should have been there, probably vibrated off. Not a real big
deal either...
>13: pilot side door hinge not adequate
This would bug me as a pilot - I'd want an easy way out - but
not as a jumper.
>14: weight and balance inadequate
This probably means the W&B wasn't in the aircraft. Not that it
wasn't done, just that they didn't have it in the aircraft.
>15: pilot checklists missing
91.503 - (a) The pilot in command of an airplane shall ensure that the
following flying equipment and aeronautical charts and data, in current
and appropriate form, are accessible for each flight at the pilot
station of the airplane:
(1) A flashlight having at least two size "D" cells, or the equivalent,
that is in good working order.
(2) A cockpit checklist containing the procedures required by paragraph
(b) of this section.
Sounds like you need 'em, eh? Until you discover that 503 only applies
to "Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes"
The only other Part 91 reference to checklists in in 609, where it
says that if you have a cockpit voice recorder, it has to be on from
the reading of the first checklist.
OTOH, checklists are a good thing.
>16: no A/C identification plate per FAR45.11D
Again, this is _trivia_! The metal plate under the tail with the serial
number is missing. I wouldn't _buy_ a plane without one, but I'd
certainly ride in one!
>17: A/C has extreme amount of debris at rudder pedals and in the belly around
>control cable tunnels and pulleys
This is a problem that is very common in old aircraft. Dirt and junk builds
up. It usually gets cleaned out at annual, and we don't know if it's
been 2 weeks or 11 months since the last annual.
>On A\C 504SD the following were found
>1: left door not openable from the inside
Again, something I'd want as a pilot, but not a real safety thing.
When did you last see a pilot get in or out the left door?
>2: spinner cracked and stop drilled
Same as on the other plane. If these are the only two aircraft they
had, I'd wonder what they were doing that was cracking their spinners,
but...
>3: broken clamp on carb heat shroud
Happens. Should get caught on next annual.
>4: #2 cylinder base oil leak
>5: #2 cylinder exhaust gasket blown
>6: #2,4,6 cylinders rocker cover gaskets inadequate
A bunch of bad gaskets. I'd ask how many hours were on the engine.
I'd probably worry about these, and if it were my plane, I'd be
thinking about replacing the #2 cylinder real soon.
Worse case, you're gonna lose the #2 and your oil in flight. I don't
know (and I'm too lazy to look up) if it is a 4 or 6 cylinder engine.
You've still got a couple of minutes of power before the engine
seizes. But a good pilot can dead-stick the plane into a field.
You're gonna total the plane, but the jumpers would probably walk
away.
>7: STC for oil filter
Huh? I'm going to guess that this means they put a filter on without
the proper paperwork. Since when did a piece of paper make a plane
safer?
>8: oil leaks
Where? How bad?
>9: new baffle behind spinner
Again, something that probably _improved_ safety, just without
the paperwork.
>10: #1 cylinder exhaust leak and flange
I have no clue.
>11: oil hoses right side chaffing
Hoses get old and brittle. It wasn't leaking, obviously, nor was
it interfering with anything, so I could see leaving this alone
until overhaul, which was obviously imminent.
>12: generator holes wallowed out
>13: #2,6 lower ignition leads insulation gone at barrel nut
It's becoming obvious that this engine is ready for an overhaul.
These are all common old-engine problems - does anyone know that
there wasn't an overhaul or engine swap planned soon?
> The witnesses at the Grain Valley Airport Unicom station heard the pilot
>radio in an electrical problem and watched the aircraft approach the Grain
>Valley Airport with black and white smoke coming from the engine cowling with
>orange flames. The pilot still had radio contact and a fully functioning
>transponder both of which are electrically driven. The aircraft was over
>congested terrain. Which leads to the theory that the pilot was trying to
>cover his ass by not reporting engine difficulty, or a fire and didn't allow
>the skydivers on board to make an emergency exit over the congested terrain.
"Cover his ass"? Maybe he smelled burning insulation and _thought_
he had an electical problem? Do you really think that the pilot would
intentionally lie to the jumpers to save his ticket? Since when did the
FAA _care_ if you lost an engine in flight? Don't forget, he died in
the plane too. I'd bet that if he knew he had a fire, he'd have wanted
out - and you can't do that without getting the jumpers out first.
"Didn't allow the skydivers on board to exit"? It was a cargo-door 206.
How do you presume he forced them to stay? Everybody landed belted in -
they didn't even _try_ to get out. Trust me, if _anybody_ had thought
the plane was on fire, they'd have been out that door if they had to
knock the pilot out to do it. And why didn't those observers at the
Unicom station _tell_ the pilot he was on fire?
If the pilot knew he was on fire, he had one option that was _guaranteed_
to save his butt - open the left door, tell the jumpers they were screwed,
and jump. The jumpers may or may not have gotten out, but the plane
would have ended up crashing in that "congested terrain", killing people
on the ground. But the pilot would have been okay.
But he didn't. He tried to limp what he had to an airport. It didn't
turn out to be the best decision - but it certainly wasn't the worst.
> On post impact investigation the NTSB found 506SD to have a broken piston
>rod, loose rocker arm cover, missing oil filler tube and barely any amount of
>oil left in the engine. This leads to the theory that the various items were
>either not tightened securely or not safety wired. These facts can be
>confirmed from the NTSB preliminary report and Frank Gattolin the NTSB
>investigator in Chicago IL.
"Theory" being the operative word here. It'll be interesting to see
the final report. Until then, _we don't know_. We may never know.
>smoke inhalation and blunt trauma. We all know that if these folks had left
>the aircraft at a higher altitude (between 4500' and 1000') their odds of
>survival would be greatly increased. The fact that the victims suffered or
Yep. Except for the tandem, which may or may not have made it.
(Is it just me that is bothered that a tandem is _much_ more likely to
die in an aircraft accident?)
> Everyone who has jumped at Independence knows that Ron Sharp has done
>unsupervised maintenance on all of these aircraft. Sharp is NOT an A/P
>mechanic. We also know that Marion Rudders wife has his logbook, which shows
>that Marion performed two emergency exits out of N506SD in the previous two
>months, due to engine failure.
Ah, but _somebody_ put their IA ticket on the line for him, because
the list of violations didn't include the plane being out of annual
inspection! So why isn't anyone going after that inspector, who
signed off all this terrible maintenace?
> One more note, this is a club that had to voluntarily resign its USPA
>membership for not having poperly rated instructors. This organization has also
>had several letters sent to the FAA about its reputation. Why weren't these
>leads followed up on? Who Knows? The fact remains that six people are now
>dead, and only now are people beggining to ask questions. It seems like others
>accurately predicted that this tradgedy was going to happen. It is time to take
>responsibility for yourself, and make sure that you jump at a safe and
>responsible DZ.
Cool! A conspiracy theory! Are you sure they weren't shot down by
a black helicoptor?
Take any general aviation aircraft. Give it to an FAA inspector, and
they'll find a list as long or longer. But we don't see them falling
out of the sky....
Tina Marie
--
Love is...pretending you're the one who wanted to order dessert.
I refuse to give in to spammers - my return address is real!
skydiver - PP-ASEL - http://www.neosoft.com/~tina
William Gere
Dear Tina Marie:
Your opinion that "very few of these violations have an impact on safety" is
that of a fool.
Having owned and flown skydiving aircraft for 15 years, including the first
King Air used to haul jumpers (that I know of), I'd like to give you my
opinion.
An aircraft operator (DZO) sets a pattern of safe operation, or lack
thereof. Compliance with FARs', training of pilots, and the decision to
ground a malfunctioning aircraft all lead to an inevitable and logical
conclusion. From the description of the jump aircraft in question, it was a
piece of shit. You can pretend that these fatalities were some "fluke" you
know, "shit happens" or you can face the reality that if you have crappy
maintenance, pilot training, and operating procedures, sooner or later
people die.
As many of us get killed on the ride up as do jumping out.
It's time that jumpers demand the HIGHEST STANDARDS for maintenance AND
Flightsafety training for pilots.
bil...@qualcomm.com
In article <6hfvqr$9pd$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>#1/3,
ti...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Tina Marie) wrote:
> Don't get me wrong. Most of these _are_ violations of the FARs. Very few
> of them have any impact on safety.
for the most part i agree with you. but -
> Note, they didn't say anything was loose. Just that it wasn't safety
> wired. There is quite possibly a _reason_ they didn't safety wire
> it - legal != safe.
quite true. however, it has been my experience that non-A+P types do not
reinstall safety wire because a) it's a pain in the ass and b) they figure
they are going to have to get back into the engine to change something else
soon. both are bad reasons, _especially_ b).
> Inspection covers pop off in flight all the time. No big deal. Probably
> should have been caught during preflight, but not any big deal. If it
> was on the flaps themselves, a lot of pilots preflight with the flaps
> up. What's the worse case scenerio? The flaps are weakened and fail.
> Any pilot that can't land without flaps should be taken out and
> forced to get some dual in a Cub.
not sure about that. could you land a 206 with one flap down, one up? or
with one track broken, so the thing hangs at an odd angle? if the linkage
breaks, most flaps will just droop a bit or stay put. (at least, they seem to
do that on the ground.) but if the track jams, the linkage keeps pushing, and
the track itself breaks? that could be bad news.
i have landed with split flaps on a 152, and while it was not a big deal,
it did take a rather unusual approach, holding a _lot_ of left aileron.
> >11: P-Lead wires not proper size no shielding and don't fit nut contact
>
> This bugs me more then all the other stuff put together - but,
> if the P-leads fail, the magnetos will fail _on_, so you won't notice
> a problem until runup the next time. I don't know enough about the
> P-leads to say if this could cause a short/fire. I don't think so,
> though.
i think the big problem is the no-shielding and don't-fit issues. if the
p-leads touch the chassis, a ground wire or the switch housing - no more
ignition, so no more engine.
> > The witnesses at the Grain Valley Airport Unicom station heard the
pilot
> >radio in an electrical problem and watched the aircraft approach the Grain
> >Valley Airport with black and white smoke coming from the engine cowling
with
> >orange flames. The pilot still had radio contact and a fully functioning
> >transponder both of which are electrically driven. The aircraft was over
> >congested terrain. Which leads to the theory that the pilot was trying to
> >cover his ass by not reporting engine difficulty, or a fire and didn't
allow
> >the skydivers on board to make an emergency exit over the congested
terrain.
>
> "Cover his ass"? Maybe he smelled burning insulation and _thought_
> he had an electical problem? Do you really think that the pilot would
> intentionally lie to the jumpers to save his ticket? Since when did the
> FAA _care_ if you lost an engine in flight? Don't forget, he died in
> the plane too. I'd bet that if he knew he had a fire, he'd have wanted
> out - and you can't do that without getting the jumpers out first.
besides which, the transponder and radio keeps working if you lose your
alternator, or if you have an electrical fire somewhere else. and besides, to
the FAA the big issue is declaring an emergency in the first place. what the
exact cause is - that comes later.
> Take any general aviation aircraft. Give it to an FAA inspector, and
> they'll find a list as long or longer. But we don't see them falling
> out of the sky....
right, and no one of those problems guaranteed a crash. but in aviation,
like skydiving, it takes more than one mistake to kill you. iffy vacuum pump?
no problem - it's VFR! no alternator strap? just makes the radios sound
staticy sometimes. worn flap track? hell, you can land without flaps. and
you could fly in that plane for years without a problem.
then one evening you're getting the last load up. you turn back to the
airport - hey, it's foggy! no problem, you've landed in fog before. you turn
base and just plain lose sight of the runway in the fog. but you've landed
here a thousand times before, so you make the last turn watching the
turn-and-bank - the attitude indicator is too wobbly to trust. of course, the
turn-and-bank can't run on eight volts, which is all the alternator can
produce with a bad ground and the landing lights on. you come out of the fog
at 100 feet in a 90 degree bank, wondering why your airspeed is still
increasing if you're holding so much back pressure.
and after the accident, you could argue that it had been pilot error,
that he should not have been using his instruments as crutches. and you'd be
right. but if they had been working, they would have been the last line of
defense against his other mistakes, the defense that turned it from a deadly
mistake to just a stupid one.
i think that you can play those games as much as you want if it's your
butt (and your plane) up there. but often, it also means the lives of the
other people in the plane. and given that, i think it makes sense to be a
little more anal about airplane maintenance.
Tina Marie
In article <utE2ZxJb9GA.255@upnetnews03>,
William Gere <wg...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>It's time that jumpers demand the HIGHEST STANDARDS for maintenance AND
>Flightsafety training for pilots.
If you want to demand it, go for it. Somebody in the US must be willing
to set up a drop zone that will do maintenance and train pilots to Part
135 standards.
It's a wonderful idea. But don't be suprised when you're paying $30+
per jump.
Maintenance, like the rest of life, is a matter of risk management.
You do as much of it as you can afford, and you put off the rest.
You have to prioritize stuff. You bitch that the latch on the pilot's
door wasn't working. For all you know, it would have cost $100 to
fix that, and the guy who did maintence decided to replace some other
$100 _which was more critical to safety_.
My point was that the stuff that wasn't done, for the most part,
wasn't crucial to safety. You say that because it wasn't done, obviously
other important, more critical, maintenance wasn't done either. I'm
saying the maintainer may well have chosen to fix the serious stuff,
and let this BS slide.
One good thing may come out of this - jumpers _need_ to be more involved
with maintenance issues, and they _need_ to know how their pilots are
trained. I was talking to the King Air pilot at Skydive Temple a
few weeks back. We were talking about engine failures on takeoff.
He had a _plan_ for every contingency that any of us could come up with.
Some of them were, "Well, there's a metal fence there. If I've got
the gear up, and we belly in, and hit it, the plane is totalled, and
some people will get hurt. But there isn't anything better that
I can do". He offered to take the guy who had started the conversation
up with him the next time he did engine-out practices (I'd have killed
for that opportunity :).
He'd thought about it, and he had a plan. I'd have flown anywhere with him.
When was the last time you had that talk with your pilot?
Pilots, like jumpers, love to talk. _Ask them_. If you ask a twin pilot
what he's gonna do when he looses an engine, and he shrugs his shoulders
and says, "I don't know. I'll deal with it when it happens", you need
to run. Far away. If you ask a single-engine pilot what he's going
to do if the engine fails at 100 ft, and his answer is "Land on the
runway I just took off on", you need to ask more questions - it's
questionable that _any_ pilot could make that 180 at takeoff speeds.
More then anything else, you're looking for a pilot who has thought
things out.
I really hoped that people would start asking these questions after the
Florida stall/spin crash. But it didn't happen. Maybe this crash
will get people talking about maintenance.
(BTW - I'm not in any way blaming the pilot or maintenance in this
crash - I'm just making a point)
William Gere
Your "do the maintenance pay $30 per jump" is an old retort from DZOs' who
haven't done the math.
How much will it cost to "put back together again" your dead friends from
independence? The Airplane? How much do you make when the king air breaks on
Saturday and you lose 50 tandem students?
It really is a "pay me now or pay me later" situation. fix the oil line or
lose the engine.
the $20,000 hot section on the king air every 1200 hours will cost $40,000
every 1600 hours, and you burn more fuel and climb slower those last 400
hours. You do the math, I did each time I wrote the check.
Jumper Dumper
Tina Marie wrote in message <6hfvqr$9pd$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>...
>In article <199804170407...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>Avi8oR4u <avi8...@aol.com> wrote:
>>currently have in my possesion. Some of the worst infractions found are;
on
>>507SD (cessna 182)
>
>You know, if these are the worst things that they found, I certainly
>wouldn't have any problems flying in these aircraft.
Having just read your reply to the above threads I must say that you have
one some research but what struck me was your attitude. Some of the so
called faults found certainly are not uncommon but you seem to feel they are
acceptable. No one thing or event leads to an accident or incident, they
snowball and one leads to another. Some of the faults could, and have been
responsible for accidents or incidents, not wire locking oil screens or
filters for example have led to catastrophic engine failures and fires.
I have seen some real "gems" when it comes to cutting corners whilst flying
and commercial operations are certainly no better than your weekend warrior.
F.Y.I. I've 15 yrs + of para flying and Comm flying, ATP, AME etc, etc.
Keith Grossman
My money (and life) are with the guy with the experience here, not the
fresh off student status pilot who already knows everything.
William Gere <wg...@email.msn.com> wrote in article
<ucTBOBMb9GA.100@uppubnews03>...
TooyT
>From: ti...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Tina Marie)
>In article <utE2ZxJb9GA.255@upnetnews03>,
>William Gere <wg...@email.msn.com> wro
>>It's time that jumpers demand the HIGHEST STANDARDS for maintenance AND
>>Flightsafety training for pilots.
>
>If you want to demand it, go for it. Somebody in the US must be willing
>to set up a drop zone that will do maintenance and train pilots to Part
>135 standards.
>
>It's a wonderful idea. But don't be suprised when you're paying $30+
>per jump.
>
>Maintenance, like the rest of life, is a matter of risk management.
>You do as much of it as you can afford, and you put off the rest.
>You have to prioritize stuff. You bitch that the latch on the pilot's
>door wasn't working. For all you know, it would have cost $100 to
>fix that, and the guy who did maintence decided to replace some other
>$100 _which was more critical to safety_.
>
**************************************************
Jeeze, you girls running fer Office or whut???? ;-P snuff
Avi8oR4u
Warning: this statement may contain facts or opinions that may be harmful if
swallowed
spectre said>
> Anyone can do maintenance on an airplane as long as it is
>inspected and signed off by an A&P or A&I. Who was the A&P or A&I that
did>so?
FAR part 43.3 (d) states A person working under the supervision of a holder of
a mechanic or repairman certificate may perform the maintenance, preventive
maintenance, and alterations that his supervisor is authorized to perform, if
the supervizor PERSONALLY OBSERVES the work being done to the extent necessary
to ensure that it is being done properly and if the supervisor is READILY
AVAILABLE, IN PERSON, FOR CONSULTATION. However, this paragraph does not
authorize the performance of any inspection required by Part 91 or Part 125 of
this chapter or any inspection performed after a MAJOR REPAIR OR ALTERATION.
spectre asked>
>Who was the A&P or A&I that did>so?
answer
John Cochran, apparently
spectre asked>.
>Your information is very compelling. However please advise us as to where>the
information came from.
answer
Again, you can contact Frank Gattolin with the NTSB at (630)377-8177.
Or try any of these.
-Public Inquiries Branch:(800)877-6799 or (202)314-6551
-Office of Safety Recommendations:(202)314-6170
-Freedom of Information Act Officer:(202)314-6540
-Administrative Law Judges:(202)314-6150
-Analysis and Data Division:(202)314-6550
-National Technical Information Service:(800)553-6847
IF YOU SPENT HALF THE TIME RESEARCHING YOU'RE OWN INFO AS YOU DO PECKING AWAY
ON THE INTERNET YOU'RE EYES WOULDN'T BE SO SQUARE!!!!!
spectre said>
> Are you sure approach>control is located in Olathe KS or is that just Kansas
City Center?
answer
Kansas City Center, in Olathe KS, is where the information and the recording
of the declared emergency can be located and confirmed. The pilot was
probably talking to Kansas City Approach Control on 119.0 at MCI. This
office, Kansas City Approach, will not handle inquiries.
spectre asked>
>The>"congested" area you talk about, where is that between Independence
Airport>and Grain Valley?
answer
Since I recieved my initial pilot training at this airport, this one will be
easy.
The two airports lie within 7 statute miles of each other.
The three major cities in between are as follows:
-East side of Independence- popultion over 300,000
-Blue Springs -population 112,301
-West side of Grain Valley -population 4,400 and growing rapidly
Major roads and highways include:
-Interstate 70
-North and South Outer Rds
-MO 291
-Selsa Rd
-Jackson Dr
-Necessary Rd
-39th St
-Arrowhead Ave
-NW Woods Chapel Rd
-King Ridge Rd
- Valley View Rd
-Route 7
-Adams Dairy Parkway
-40 highway
-Rt AA
-Rt BB
-Hidden Valley Rd
-Keystone Dr
-Clark Rd
-Jefferson St
-Sni a Bar Rd
-Willow Dr }
-EE Kirkby Rd }
{ These Roads are the closest to where the aircraft crashed. The
residents of 915 Willow Dr were home when the crash occured. The family and
children had to be there as six people died, two victims ran 50 feet while
burning before they collasped. Nobody sent these flowers to these residents.
Nor took the time to apologize to them.
Thats a fact.
This is a short list..........
Neighborhoods and Residential include:
-Cross Creek <Ward Development
-Farmington Acres
-Lakes at Farmington
-Blue Meadow <Steve Frisbei (Developer)
-Blue Ranch <Steve Gridlehaus (Developer)
-Sni a Bar Farms West <Ronny Parker (Developer)
-Savannah Hieghts <Steve McBride (Developer)
-Woods Chapel Estates
-Donovans Place
-Creekside Est
-Nantucket Village
-Primrose Est
-Countryside <Dandorf Construction
-Burr Oak Woods
-Havenhille
-Timber Oaks
-Country Club North
-Stone Creek
-Pleasant Grove
-Nottingham Place
-Meadow Hills
-Autumn Place Apartments
-Kings Ridge Apartments
Parks and Schools include:
-Blue Springs High 5A
-James Lewis Elementary
-Grain Valley Highschool
-John Nowlin Elementary
-MO Goldstar School Of Excellence
-Heart of America Pop Warner Football Fields
-Joe Delaney Sports Complex
-Hidden Valley Park (sports complex)
10 soccer fields
9 baseball fields
2 batting cages
2 football fields
a concession stand
-Mill Springs Business Park
-Fleming Park
-Rotary Park at Railroad Lake
Hotels and Motels along Interstate 70 include:
-Red Roof Inn
-Drury Inn
-American Inn
-Sleep Inn
-Super 8
-Ramada
-Hampton Inn
-Holiday Inn Express
-Motel 6
-Trailerside Campers Inn and RV park
Commercial and Industrial include everything from Walmart to Petals and
Potpourri.
NEED I SAY MORE? THE AREA IS CONGESTED !
Call these numbers!!!!!!!!!!
(816)325-7010 Independence City Hall
(816)228-0110 Blue Springs City Hall
(816)229-6275 Grain Valley City Hall
Anyone of these City Administrators would gladly tell you how fast their cities
are growing.
spectre asked>
> If Bryan requested that you do the investigation then>again why do you not
provide your name and experience?
answer
TONY ROBBINS D14386
USPA #79420
USPA Jumpmaster/ Instructor
PRO
Commercial Pilot
Single/Multi Engine Land
Instrument Airplane
A decade of experience in aviation.....
AGAIN, I DO NOT WISH, NOR HAVE I EVER WISHED, TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS
Bryan Welch and I have known each other for several years now. He and his wife
have cooked hamburgers in my kitchen on the Fourth of July. Bryan and I are
both Firemen and in the Emergency Medical Field in Kansas City. His wife works
in an E.R. that I have done clinicals at. I have videoed and taken pictures of
Bryan and Erics first CRW jumps together. I have traveled to Boogies with
Bryan. Bryan has flown with me, just fooling around shooting touch and goes
around Kansas City. Bryan, his wife, 2i'd Phil and I were the only skydivers
who showed up for Eric Rueff's funeral in Shelbyville, Illinios.
I HAVE NO FEUD WITH BRYAN WELCH---
He is an, honest man that doesn't know all the facts, history and details. He
has assumed a responsibilty that he cannot handle; bad things have happened;
his friend is dead.
I have sacrificed a friendship with Bryan Because of this accident,because I
have told the truth.. It may take a lifetime for him to figure out the facts
and the truth.
spectre said>
>Lets get to the truth, please. It just appears that the old DZ battles
>still rage on even when there is such a great loss as this. As a pilot I>am
sickened with the rumor mill that has been created. Honor our dead and>seek
the truth through the correct avenues.
THE TRUTH IS............... THIS IS NOT A DZ BATTLE
THESE ARE THE FACTS
I support safe skydiving and safe general aviation everywhere. I've been
around the KC area since the conception of the Greater Kansas City Skydiving
Club. I can assure you that this DZ exists and was created due to spite. I
remember sitting in the hot tub at my house after a demo with Ron Sharp, his
wife and several other skydivers. Ron and his wife even slept in my very own
bed that night; without me there of course. Who knows?, their son may have
even been concieved in my bed.? Sick thought!!!!!
Ron Sharp and his wife left Missouri River Valley Skydivers because of a
personal conflict. Ron stated to me that his "sole purpose in life was to make
MRVS go out of business." This is the true vendetta.
Ron opened his DZ as a Club to generate funding from other experienced
skydivers. The DZ was supposed to be experienced skydivers only; I
specifically remember standing in Ron Sharps seamster shop, A Stitch In Time on
Barry Road, discussing how the DZ would function. It would be a club so that
he would not have to assume the responsibilty as the DZO. Everyone would pay
dues and generate money for the DZ. Ron would not have to purchase aircraft in
his name; again no responsibilty.
It sounded like a great idea until Ron found out what the real " bread
and butter" of any DZ really is, students!!! First it was Tandems, then came
along IAD, and then AFF. Next thing you know, GKCSC was a student factory. I
never trained or jumpmastered a student at this DZ, and I condemn any
jumpmaster that has ever done so. Scary events started happening with
students and some of the experienced skydivers started to leave. New equipment
was never purchased for students. Students were landing in neighborhoods and
trees. Unrated staff members were teaching and jumpmastering students. Hence,
the USPA membership was asked to be surrendered. I currently work with a
paramedic who ran an ambulance call to a student skydiver who broke his back.
When the ambulance arrived my colleague proceeded to get his ass chewed by Ron
Sharp for arriving with lights and sirens on. Lights and sirens would draw too
much bad publicity with the surrounding nieghborhoods. Many more dangerous
events started happening. (I know, I know "nebulas terms"); But alot of these
events are on video. This is when my jumping at Independence tappered off. I
could never get a warm fuzzy feeling about jumping here. However I tried to
maintain good terms with the DZ. On occasion I would make a jump or two, just
to say hi to old friends, or make a jump during the week because it was close
and convenient. I warned Ron of the dangers he was facing. I was blown off
and continue to recieve a cold shoulder everytime I visit GKCSC because I don't
think its a safe DZ........ Ron, you son of a bitch, you didn't even look me
in the eye when you walked passed me after you scattered the ashes of our
friends.
For those of you who think I am trying to argue, concoct a story or declare
some sort of rhetoric conspiracy theory; know this: I'm no hero, I only take
responsibility for myself and my own actions. I am alive for that reason. I
refuse to tell others what they can or cannot do. Sometimes opinions need to
be expressed, even when all the facts aren't directly in front of your eyes.
I know when to draw the line at where I tell others how unsafe their actions
are.
IF YOU'RE GONNA BE REAL STUPID, YOU BETTER BE REAL TOUGH
Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous, but even to an even greater
degree than the sea; it is terribly unforgiving of ANY incapacity, carelessness
or neglect.
I never thought I would ever have to say this.........
But, I told
you so.
Tony
Robbins
Tony Robbins
Martin Evans
Keith Grossman wrote:
> My money (and life) are with the guy with the experience here, not the
> fresh off student status pilot who already knows everything.
>
You betcha.
Martin Evans.
--
"Never confuse movement with action". Ernest Hemingway
John Pearce
Tina Marie wrote:
>
> In article <199804170407...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> Avi8oR4u <avi8...@aol.com> wrote:
> >currently have in my possesion. Some of the worst infractions found are; on
> >507SD (cessna 182)
>
> You know, if these are the worst things that they found, I certainly
> wouldn't have any problems flying in these aircraft.
>
> Don't get me wrong. Most of these _are_ violations of the FARs. Very few
> of them have any impact on safety.
Obviously, you don't know what is safe and what is not when it comes to
aircraft. You had a very long list here and overlooked the obvious
entirely, which is that it is a long list. Most aircraft accidents are
due to an accumulation of little problems and mistakes rather than one
big mistake or problem.
> >2: prop spinner cracked and stop drilled
>
> If it was well done, not any big deal. If you're talking about
> the "metal pointy thing" that sticks out in front of the prop, it's not
> structural. I've also heard the metal piece that the prop bolts onto
> called a spinner, and since the poster obviously didn't post these
> verbatim, I'm not sure.
It's probably the little pointy thing as you say, but... how would you
know if it was done well? How would you know that this is no big deal?
If the the little pointy thing comes apart, pieces hit the prop, the
prop breaks, and the engine vibrates itself right out of the airframe.
All this takes less than 5 seconds and your left with a plane that has
no CG and it is likely that centrifugal forces will keep everyone inside
until impact. No wait, the pilot could have gotten out and maybe a
jumper or two could have been thrown out the door... but the door
wouldn't have opened. :) Sound improbable? It's happened and many
times. Not so much in recent years and I think that regulations has
much to do with that.
I'm not trying to support or impute any allegations regarding this
accident as I do not know the facts. I am criticizing your response to
and apparent ready acceptance of illegal and inherently unsafe aircraft
operation. Whether or not these conditions existed in this case is
irrelevant to me, I am commenting on your support of the situation it if
it did exist. All in the name of cheaper jump tickets. Fact is, over
the long run these shortcuts don't save any money at all. The plane
eventually must be repaired or replaced. Continual accidents raise
insurance rates, etc., which result in increased jump prices, and dead
aviation related enthusiasts. I'm sure their families are happy that
your jump prices are still low and that they have begun to understand
why there is no insurance money to help them through this time.
I would hate to see your ranting rationale reproduced in the press. It
would give skydivers and skydiving a very bad name. I have an idea, see
if the USPA will publish your sterling thoughts! This is a public
forum, one of my friends is an inspector at the FAA FSDO here in
Scottsdale and I can assure you that folks there read this forum from
time to time. Usually when an accident or some situation has arisen.
--
John Pearce
Phoenix AZ
JumpUMagot
Okay, I've been following this thread for a good long while now.
In September of '95 I lost some of the closest friends I'll ever have when we
lost our Queen Air on take-off. I've been down the road you all are travelling.
(For the record, our planes were very well maintained....Even then, sometimes
engines just break)
What prompted this response is the absurd attitude towards safety I've been
reading. What's getting to me is that a whole new crop of jumpers are going to
be raised in an atmosphere of "Hey, what did you expect, Air Force One? Jump
planes are at the bottom of the food chain." So, this generation of jumpers get
used to marginally maintained planes as the standard, but will accept poorly
maintained planes. The next generation gets used to poorly maintained planes
but will jump unsafe planes. The next generation will be willing to jump
unairworthy planes.... it's a slippery slope.
It kinda makes me proud of the fact that Peninsula Skydivers sent home a King
Air because it didn't have the proper paperwork on board. Yes, it was a
beautiful day for jumping. Yes, we wanted to jump. No, the FAA wasn't sitting
on the ramp. No, we didn't have another plane.
If noone jumps an aircraft, pretty soon it will make economic sense to the
owner to do the maintenance. The plane's not making any money sitting on the
ramp.
This isn't economically possible?
Go to some of the most successful DZs in the country. There you will also find
some of the better-maintained aircraft. Coincidence?
Jumpships get to be jumpships generally because they can no longer meet Part
135 standards and are retired from commuter service, but they still have to
meet certain airworthyness standards!
Vote with your feet.
Vote with your wallet.
..or vote with your life.
JJ Johnson D-18218
West Point, VA
Tina Marie
In article <6hgg2f$6i7$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
Tina Marie <ti...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>If you want to demand it, go for it. Somebody in the US must be willing
>to set up a drop zone that will do maintenance and train pilots to Part
>135 standards.
I know, it's bad to followup your own posts. According to some
private email, both Quantum Leap and Skydive Arizona are Part 135.
Tina Marie
[accidently e-mailed before I posted it]
In article <353C6D8D...@uswest.net>,
John Pearce <jpe...@uswest.net> wrote:
>Obviously, you don't know what is safe and what is not when it comes to
>aircraft. You had a very long list here and overlooked the obvious
>entirely, which is that it is a long list. Most aircraft accidents are
>due to an accumulation of little problems and mistakes rather than one
>big mistake or problem.
It was something like 17 things, on two different planes. I don't
think I'd call that a "long list"
>It's probably the little pointy thing as you say, but... how would you
>know if it was done well? How would you know that this is no big deal?
How do you know it isn't?
>If the the little pointy thing comes apart, pieces hit the prop, the
>prop breaks, and the engine vibrates itself right out of the airframe.
I thought about this, and, being me, did a bit of research. Called the
Houston FSDO, and the person I talked to there said it was up to the
manufacturer, but there wasn't any reason _in general_ why stop-drilling
the crack wasn't acceptable - as long as the manufacturer didn't have
a problem with it. I called Cessna. They ran me around in circles.
I never did get a definate answer, although I talked to several different
people. The closest to an answer that I could get was that it was okay
to stop-drill it, but that wasn't a "repair", although it was an acceptable
thing to do until you repaired or replaced it.
Then I went off to the NTSB reports, looking for any incidents where
a propeller spinner contributed to an accident. The first one was
a formation flight - a Quickie II lost its spinner, lost a propeller
blade, made a successful dead-stick landing at an airport - then one
of the other pilots in the formation flew over the top of him, pulled
up too fast, and stalled/spun in. Hardly very applicable here.
(NTSB # DEN86FA213).
Grand Prairie, TX (NTSB #FTW90LA025):
WHILE THE AIRPLANE WAS AT CRUISE, THE RIGHT PROPELLER SPINNER FELL OFF.
THREE OR FOUR MINUTES LATER, THE RIGHT PROPELLER CAME OFF AND CUT INTO
THE NOSE OF THE AIRPLANE. WITH NO ELECTRICAL POWER, AND DETERIORATED
AIRPLANE CONTROL, THE PILOT MADE A WHEELS-UP LANDING ON THE DESTINATION
AIRPORT. THE RIGHT PROPELLER AND THE CENTER OF THE STARTER RING WERE NOT
RECOVERED. FIVE OF THE PROPELLER ATTACHMENT BOLTS REMAINED IN THE ENGINE
CRANKSHAFT FLANGE. LABORATORY VISUAL INSPECTION INDICATED FOUR OF THESE
BOLTS FAILED FROM FATIGUE AND THE FIFTH FAILED FROM OVERLOAD.
Here again, the spinner was only periphially related - the propeller
bolts were the real problem. No injuries.
Another one can be found at NSTB #CHI92DCD08. A homebuilt who lost
his propeller and spinner declared an emergency and landed in a soybean
field. He sustained minor injuries when the aircraft nosed over in
the dirt.
A Velocity (NTSB #MIA93LA022) lost 17 inches of propeller in cruise.
1 minor injury when the pilot misjudged the forced landing and
landed in the trees. He didn't have a spinner installed, and
the bolts that attached the prop were too long.
Here's a spinner that departed in flight (NTSB #FTW96LA207) (one
minor injury):
The pilot had installed a composite propeller with a composite spinner
that extended forward about 14 inches and did not have a forward support
plate. During the first flight, an object departed the propeller area.
The pilot reported the airplane rolled left with a loss of control
during the forced landing. A pilot/witness reported observing the airplane
stall. The spinner backing plate remained attached with the 12 screws in
place; however, the rest of the spinner was not recovered. Flap continuity
was confirmed. The propeller installation bolts did not extend through
the self-locking nuts. The owner/pilot did not contact the FAA for an
inspection of the propeller installation. FAA inspectors stated that
the installation was a major change and required FAA notification. The
experimental category airplane and the propeller were neither manufactured
nor required to be in accordance with a FAA Type Certificate (and therefore,
they are not governed by any FAR's for design and production).
>All this takes less than 5 seconds and your left with a plane that has
>no CG and it is likely that centrifugal forces will keep everyone inside
>until impact. No wait, the pilot could have gotten out and maybe a
I'd love a reference for this, because the NTSB reports don't match
this statement (they go back to '83 online).
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
In article <199804211211...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
jumpu...@aol.com (JumpUMagot) wrote:
[snip]
> What prompted this response is the absurd attitude towards safety I've been
> reading. What's getting to me is that a whole new crop of jumpers are going
to
> be raised in an atmosphere of "Hey, what did you expect, Air Force One? Jump
> planes are at the bottom of the food chain." So, this generation of jumpers
get
> used to marginally maintained planes as the standard, but will accept poorly
> maintained planes. The next generation gets used to poorly maintained planes
> but will jump unsafe planes. The next generation will be willing to jump
> unairworthy planes.... it's a slippery slope.
I understand your logic, but in reality the slope has been tilted
drastically the other way. Long ago it was common that most planes
used for jumping weren't exactly show pieces. I took off in a plane which
had an old lawn mower wheel for a tail wheel (once, it didn't last the
trip). I regularly jumped from an aircraft whose only
working instrument were a radio, a magnetic compass, and a tachometer.
Even the larger plane were VERY old aircraft such as Beech 18's
DC-3's, and the infamous Loadstar. Really, until the advent of tandem and
turbine driven aircraft, the aircraft never looked very good and
emergency bailouts were not uncommon. Those old radials just didn't
last forever.
As Ken and Barbie have come into the sport (or more importantly
their money) economics have driven folks towards better aircraft
maintenance. An airplane that isn't flying, isn't making money.
An unairworthy turbine isn't going to be flown by anyone with a
professional license on the line, and can't be flown by the kid
from the flight school down the street. The result has been that
folks expect BETTER aircraft than is probably necessary. I hear
bitching about lack of carpet, bad rear doors, not enough handles,
etc. At this point we have folks deciding aircraft are unsafe because
they find a loose allen wrench in the cockpit. Its a slippery slope
all right, I'm just kinda wondering what's at the end.
Kevin O'Connell
Glen Baker
Tina Marie (ti...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
> You know, if these are the worst things that they found, I certainly
> wouldn't have any problems flying in these aircraft.
You know, if that's the attitude Tina has toward flying then I certainly
*would* have a problem getting into any aircraft for which she was
responsible. I believe the point here is not that any one item is
catastrophic, but that the presence of so many "minor" problems indicates
a dangerously casual attitude toward aircraft maintenece.
>>6: inspection covers missing on flaps (tops)
> Inspection covers pop off in flight all the time.
Really? On what aircraft? I've *never* had an inspection cover pop off in
flight, nor have I ever heard of it happening. The flap inspection covers
on a Cessna are typically held on with 3 screws and they most definately
do *not* pop off in flight all the time.
> What's the worse case scenerio? The flaps are weakened and fail.
> Any pilot that can't land without flaps should be taken out and
> forced to get some dual in a Cub.
Two problems here: First off Tina is demonstrating a lack of knowlege
about structure...the lack of an inspection port is not going to cause
a flap to "fail". More troubling, however, is the implicit statement that
structural failure is no big deal and that a pilot who can't deal with
it somehow lacking in training.
>>8: seat back stops missing
> If the pilot is aware of the problem, it's not a real big deal -
> _especially_ in a jumpship, where you're likely to have a skydiver up
> against that seat, keeping it from sliding back.
Sigh. Yes it is a big deal. It's not something you normally consider
during takeoff and your natural reaction is going to be to pull on the
yoke (unless you've *trained* yourself not to...I assume that Tina has
done such training based on her comments, right??). In a heavilly loaded
C182, close to the ground, with a fairly aft CG it doesn't take a whole
lot to make your life real miserable real quick. Again, Tina displays
a cavalier attitude that is troubling.
> >10: oil screen cap not saftey wired
> More safety wire. This could have been an oversight, or could have
> been intentionally left off for easier oil changes. Again, notice
> that nobody said it was _loose_ - just not safetly wired. The FAA
> _loves_ safety wire.
Tina, have you ever watched an airplane go in due to the lack of a
safety wire? I've personally seen the oil track that started at the hangar
and went to the end of the runway. That particular plane ended up in
a field about a quarter of a mile from the end of the runway. However since
the pilot walked away I guess you would consider this "no big deal", right?
> >4: #2 cylinder base oil leak
> >5: #2 cylinder exhaust gasket blown
> >6: #2,4,6 cylinders rocker cover gaskets inadequate
> A bunch of bad gaskets. I'd ask how many hours were on the engine.
> I'd probably worry about these, and if it were my plane, I'd be
> thinking about replacing the #2 cylinder real soon.
How about if you were carrying passengers for hire? Perhaps there's cause
to do a bit more than "worry" and actually *do* something about it?
> Worse case, you're gonna lose the #2 and your oil in flight. I don't
> know (and I'm too lazy to look up) if it is a 4 or 6 cylinder engine.
> You've still got a couple of minutes of power before the engine
> seizes. But a good pilot can dead-stick the plane into a field.
> You're gonna total the plane, but the jumpers would probably walk
> away.
Ah. Since they're going to walk away it's OK? Incredible attitude.
> >7: STC for oil filter
Ah. Since they're going to walk away it's OK? Incredible attitude.
>>10: #1 cylinder exhaust leak and flange
> I have no clue.
I couldn't have said it better...thanks.
> Take any general aviation aircraft. Give it to an FAA inspector, and
> they'll find a list as long or longer. But we don't see them falling
> out of the sky....
Absolute unmitigated bullshit. I've got two general aviation aircraft
that get inspected every year (kind of like "annually"). Our squawk lists
are *never* anywhere near that long nor as serious.
Based on her posting I would consider Tina to be a very dangerous individual
and one with whom I would *not* fly. And no, I'm not hung up on regulations,
am well aware that planes fly just fine without checklists, etc. It's just
that her *attitude* is, in my opinion, unsafe.
..glen
Tina Marie
In article <6hgllv$i35$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <bil...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
> quite true. however, it has been my experience that non-A+P types do not
>reinstall safety wire because a) it's a pain in the ass and b) they figure
>they are going to have to get back into the engine to change something else
>soon. both are bad reasons, _especially_ b).
True. I can, however, give you an example where installing safety
wire made things _less_ safe.
Lycoming O320, 2300 hours since new. An AD came due, I flew the plane
up to the A&Ps. We pulled the carb off for the AD, took it apart to
discover that the accelerator pump was trashed. It was going to take
a week to get the part. So I left the plane there, got a ride back
to Houston with a guy in an RV4.
Drove back up the next weekend to pick her up. During the week she'd
sat in the hanger with her cowling off, one of the mechanics had noticed
that one of the bolts that held one of the cylinders to the crankcase
didn't look quite right. He reached in and wiggled it - and it wasn't
attached to _anything_. The stud had broken "hundreds of hours ago",
according to the A&P. It had been through at least 1 complete pre-purchase
inspection and 1, possibly more, annual inspection. Nobody had ever
noticed it - because the safety wire held it in place!
> not sure about that. could you land a 206 with one flap down, one up? or
I'm not sure that I could. In email that I sent to somebody, I made a
point that I obviously didn't make clearly here - I don't have a problem
with any of this stuff as a _jumper_. As a pilot, I'd have a lot more
questions to ask, because my level of responsibility is much higher.
> i have landed with split flaps on a 152, and while it was not a big deal,
>it did take a rather unusual approach, holding a _lot_ of left aileron.
That's about what I figured it would take.
> i think the big problem is the no-shielding and don't-fit issues. if the
>p-leads touch the chassis, a ground wire or the switch housing - no more
>ignition, so no more engine.
Ah. I don't know enough about Continetals to know how likely that is...
> besides which, the transponder and radio keeps working if you lose your
>alternator, or if you have an electrical fire somewhere else. and besides, to
>the FAA the big issue is declaring an emergency in the first place. what the
>exact cause is - that comes later.
Everyone seems to have this idea that declaring an emergency is a really
terrible thing to have to do. I've never done it (and I hope I never have
to!), but it really isn't a horrible thing. Most of the time, you have
to land, then call the controller and explain what happened. Very, very
rarely, you have to write a letter of explaination. That's it. The
controller has some paperwork to fill out, but that's about it.
Even if you violated an FAR, there's a form you can fill out (the NASA
form - I can't think of it's name right now) that is essentially a
"get out of jail free" card. You fill it out, send it in, and the FAA
can't suspend or revoke your ticket for the violation. They can still
asses civil penalties, and it won't get you out of criminal charges
(like drug running). You can use it once a year.
> then one evening you're getting the last load up. you turn back to the
>airport - hey, it's foggy! no problem, you've landed in fog before. you turn
>base and just plain lose sight of the runway in the fog. but you've landed
>here a thousand times before, so you make the last turn watching the
>turn-and-bank - the attitude indicator is too wobbly to trust. of course, the
>turn-and-bank can't run on eight volts, which is all the alternator can
>produce with a bad ground and the landing lights on. you come out of the fog
>at 100 feet in a 90 degree bank, wondering why your airspeed is still
>increasing if you're holding so much back pressure.
This is one of the reasons why I don't like flying rentals. As a pilot,
I have a responsibility to get my passengers on the ground in one piece.
If I don't know how the maintenance is being done, I'm ignoring a large
part of my responsibilty. Pilots in general should be more aware of
mantenance issues - but this isn't the group for that discussion.
Intentionally going VFR-into-IMC is stupid, and that's pretty much what
you're talking about here. If you do it knowing you only have a
partial panel, then fixate on the turn-and-bank, neglecting to check
one of your primary instruments (the compass, which is spinning like
mad in your example), you're an idiot. That's a pilot training
problem. It was made worse by the lack of instruments, but it's
pilot error.
> and after the accident, you could argue that it had been pilot error,
>that he should not have been using his instruments as crutches. and you'd be
>right. but if they had been working, they would have been the last line of
>defense against his other mistakes, the defense that turned it from a deadly
>mistake to just a stupid one.
You're right. But there are a few other things which contributed,
which are just par for the course with jumpships, and which no one ever
questions.
If he'd have had reserves (how many jumpships carry 1/2 hour reserves, let
alone 45 minutes?), he could have gone somewhere without fog. If
he'd have had decent radios, he could have shot an instrument approach
somewhere. And if he'd have been instrument current (or proficient), he
wouldn't have fixated on the turn-and-bank. He'd have used all the
instruments he had to cross-check, and would have quickly realized he
didn't have a turn-and-bank either. You _can_ make a turn in IFR
with only airspeed, ball, and compass (that's a generic you -
I'm not sure that I could). If he'd have had a current weather briefing,
he'd have known it was going to fog up, or at least that there would
have been low clouds. And fog rarely forms right before sunset - it
forms right _after_ sunset, so he dropped that last load after sunset
There was a much longer chain of events. The non-working instruments
are pretty far down the chain. But we don't question lack of fuel
reserves, lack of radios, or "sunset" loads that are really after sunset -
because they are just the way things are. I'm saying that imperfect
maintenance isn't any different - it's just more likely to get pushed
under the rug and ignored. It shouldn't be. But it is, and this
drop zone (in KS, right?) seems, if anything, better then a lot.
Tina Marie
In article <6higjj$1...@canyon.sr.hp.com>, Glen Baker <g...@sr.hp.com> wrote:
> You know, if that's the attitude Tina has toward flying then I certainly
> *would* have a problem getting into any aircraft for which she was
> responsible. I believe the point here is not that any one item is
> catastrophic, but that the presence of so many "minor" problems indicates
> a dangerously casual attitude toward aircraft maintenece.
I'm going to try this one more time, since I made the point in another
bit of this thread. _As a jumper_, I wouldn't have any problems
jumping any of these planes. _As a pilot_, I'd ask a lot more
questions. I may or may not be willing to fly them, depending on those
answers.
As a jumper, I'm responsible for my own safety. I saw nothing on
that list which would cause an unsafe situation _for the jumpers_.
As a pilot, I'm responsible for the safety of my passengers, the
successful landing of the airplane, and my safety, in that order.
See what I'm saying?
> Two problems here: First off Tina is demonstrating a lack of knowlege
> about structure...the lack of an inspection port is not going to cause
> a flap to "fail". More troubling, however, is the implicit statement that
> structural failure is no big deal and that a pilot who can't deal with
> it somehow lacking in training.
It shouldn't cause structual damage. In the worse case, it could. Drop
30 or 40 degrees when you're a bit above Vfe, and I'd bet you'd end up
with a bent flap.
I'm sorry, but we're talking about a _flap_ here. Not a control surface,
not a wing, not a prop. A flap.
billvn has a good story about landing a 152 with only one flap. The same
procedure would work with one bent flap...
> Sigh. Yes it is a big deal. It's not something you normally consider
> during takeoff and your natural reaction is going to be to pull on the
> yoke (unless you've *trained* yourself not to...I assume that Tina has
> done such training based on her comments, right??). In a heavilly loaded
I don't fly Cessnas anymore, but when I flew the 172, one of the
first things my CFI taught me was that if the seat started to slide
back, _let go of the yoke_.
Your first reaction to coming up short on a forced landing is to
pull back on the yoke. Your first instinct in a spin is to pull back
out of the dive. Your first instinct in a stall when a wing drops
is to level the wings with aileron. Your first instinct in IMC is
to trust your body over the instruments. Your first reaction on
seeing trees in front of you on takeoff is to pull up, sometimes
into a departure stall. We train all those reactions out of student
pilots - why should "don't grab the yoke if the seat is sliding back"
be any different?
(And I think I made the point in the first post that I wouldn't fly
a Cessna without the stops. But _it wouldn't stop me from jumping it_,
which is the whole point of the discussion.)
> Tina, have you ever watched an airplane go in due to the lack of a
> safety wire? I've personally seen the oil track that started at the hangar
> and went to the end of the runway. That particular plane ended up in
> a field about a quarter of a mile from the end of the runway. However since
> the pilot walked away I guess you would consider this "no big deal", right?
As a jumper, _YES, I CONSIDER IT NO BIG DEAL!_. My responsibility is
for my own safety, and I don't consider it a threat to my safety.
(And if he dropped that much oil, you can't tell me that the oil pressure
read anything close to correct when he ran up at the end of the runway...)
> How about if you were carrying passengers for hire? Perhaps there's cause
> to do a bit more than "worry" and actually *do* something about it?
If you're carrying passengers for hire in pretty much anything
except skydiving, TBO is mandatory, and I'd bet that that engine was
past TBO.
>> You're gonna total the plane, but the jumpers would probably walk
>> away.
>
> Ah. Since they're going to walk away it's OK? Incredible attitude.
YES. Once again, I'd have no problems getting in the plane as a passenger,
_because I see nothing on that list that, in the very worst case, the
passengers won't walk away from_. That _is_ the discussion we're having
here - whether it's a safe place to jump, not whether you'd fly
their planes.
> Absolute unmitigated bullshit. I've got two general aviation aircraft
> that get inspected every year (kind of like "annually"). Our squawk lists
> are *never* anywhere near that long nor as serious.
But do they get ridden hard and put away wet like jumpships? Stuff goes
wrong with jump planes. It's the way it is. If you pamper your planes,
you're right, you won't have any squawks at annual time. But a drop
zone can't afford to pamper their planes.
(BTW - the Tripacer just came out of annual. My squawk list? Some
bad fabric on the top of the fusalage, which we had replaced. She
gets pampered, and everytime something needs done, it gets done
immediately. But she only flies a little more then 100 hours a year,
with two pilots who are careful with her - a jump plane can easily
triple that.)
> Based on her posting I would consider Tina to be a very dangerous individual
> and one with whom I would *not* fly. And no, I'm not hung up on regulations,
> am well aware that planes fly just fine without checklists, etc. It's just
> that her *attitude* is, in my opinion, unsafe.
*shrug* I think you misread what I said in the original post. But
if you think I'm unsafe, by all means, don't fly with me.
I've got an exercise for you (generic you, not Glen in particular).
Print out that list of squawks. Take it to the drop zone this weekend.
Ask your DZO or pilot how he'd feel about any of those things on his
plane. And make your own decisions from there.
Martin Evans
Glen Baker wrote:
> Tina Marie (ti...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
>
>
> > I have no clue.
>
Glen Baker wrote:
> I couldn't have said it better...thanks.
>
LOL
An absolute gem!
Martin Evans.
bil...@qualcomm.com
In article <6hihnd$6bs$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
ti...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Tina Marie) wrote:
> I'm not sure that I could. In email that I sent to somebody, I made a
> point that I obviously didn't make clearly here - I don't have a problem
> with any of this stuff as a _jumper_. As a pilot, I'd have a lot more
> questions to ask, because my level of responsibility is much higher.
well, but see - most jumpers don't know what questions to ask. you do.
and i guess it worried me a little that here's one of the few people who could
ask the right questions, get the answers, and understand them. and your take
on the whole thing was - the plane's fine. if that's the case, and your take
on it is sort of a typical response, i think we'll continue to see crashes and
fatalities at least partly due to aircraft maintenance problems.
i saw a friend of mine die when the engine on the plane he was flying
blew. it was just one cylinder, and the engine continued to run for about 30
seconds. he could have landed on the sod farm he was over, but he didn't. he
tried for the runway. even on base he could have aborted the turn to final
and landed at lufker (airport 100 yards west.) he didn't, so he died. and in
a lot of ways it was his fault. still, if the engine hadn't come apart, he
would be alive today, and davey would not be a quadriplegic. and had you
looked at the squack sheet on 5010D just before it crashed it would have been
about the same as the list on the first GKSC plane.
so i guess the question you have to ask yourself is - is that OK? is it
OK to have planes that require excellent judgement, reactions and flying
skills from pilots because there's so much wrong with them? because i have
noticed that pilots are a lot like people. they make mistakes. a plane in
good working order is pretty forgiving of mistakes, but a plane like the one
described in the previous post sounds like it is not. 5010D was not, and i
saw the result.
> Everyone seems to have this idea that declaring an emergency is a really
> terrible thing to have to do. I've never done it (and I hope I never have
> to!), but it really isn't a horrible thing. Most of the time, you have
> to land, then call the controller and explain what happened. Very, very
> rarely, you have to write a letter of explaination. That's it. The
> controller has some paperwork to fill out, but that's about it.
and it depends where it happens. at republic in NY, a busy GA/commuter
airport, you had to at least write a report and talk to some FAA rep. and if
you could show it wasn't your fault (radio failure or something) that was the
end of it.
> Even if you violated an FAR, there's a form you can fill out (the NASA
> form - I can't think of it's name right now) that is essentially a
> "get out of jail free" card. You fill it out, send it in, and the FAA
> can't suspend or revoke your ticket for the violation. They can still
> asses civil penalties, and it won't get you out of criminal charges
> (like drug running). You can use it once a year.
you know, i looked into that a while back. (this is the ASRS form, i
assume.) and if you read the fine print, it basically says that they can't
get you in trouble for information on the form. but if you buzz some
airliner, and the pilot files a report, and you land and mail the card just as
soon as you possibly can, you still get busted. they just can't use
whatever's on the card against you.
> Intentionally going VFR-into-IMC is stupid, and that's pretty much what
> you're talking about here. If you do it knowing you only have a
> partial panel, then fixate on the turn-and-bank, neglecting to check
> one of your primary instruments (the compass, which is spinning like
> mad in your example), you're an idiot. That's a pilot training
> problem. It was made worse by the lack of instruments, but it's
> pilot error.
most accidents are. but aircraft maintenance problems can often turn a
pilot error into a fatal error.
> There was a much longer chain of events. The non-working instruments
> are pretty far down the chain. But we don't question lack of fuel
> reserves, lack of radios, or "sunset" loads that are really after sunset -
> because they are just the way things are. I'm saying that imperfect
> maintenance isn't any different - it's just more likely to get pushed
> under the rug and ignored. It shouldn't be. But it is, and this
> drop zone (in KS, right?) seems, if anything, better then a lot.
the thing that bugs me about all this - a bunch of people died, probably
due to a problem with the aircraft. there may or may not be a problem with
the other two planes there (i don't believe everything i read on the net) but
let's assume for now that there is. you've seen the list. and you think
everything is "better than average." so should we be content with this
average? planes that require lightning-fast reflexes from pilots because the
seats just slide back sometimes? that require dead-stick landing skills
because they are blowing head gaskets left and right? that can't report
problems because their batteries are old and tired and the alternator bolts
are loose? that catch on fire sometimes because the fuel line banjo bolts are
not safety wired?
we talk a lot about self-regulation here. but if the level of
self-regulation we apply to the condition of our aircraft is so low that a
plane that won't pass an annual is "better than average," we're doing less
than nothing, and all the talk of self-regulation is just that - talk. what
we're really doing is seeing what we can get away with, and that sucks.
Colin Fitzmaurice
In article <6hij7e$1ol$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
writes
>[snip]
>
> I understand your logic, but in reality the slope has been tilted
>drastically the other way. Long ago it was common that most planes
>used for jumping weren't exactly show pieces. I took off in a plane which
>had an old lawn mower wheel for a tail wheel (once, it didn't last the
>trip). I regularly jumped from an aircraft whose only
>working instrument were a radio, a magnetic compass, and a tachometer.
>Even the larger plane were VERY old aircraft such as Beech 18's
>DC-3's, and the infamous Loadstar. Really, until the advent of tandem and
>turbine driven aircraft, the aircraft never looked very good and
>emergency bailouts were not uncommon. Those old radials just didn't
>last forever.
Anyone remember jumping 40 Tango in Z'Hills years ago? If you got to
13,000' with two engines still turning it was always a nice bonus :)
The first aircraft I jumped from was an old Edgar Percival EP9
Prospector which ran on fuel bought from the local petrol station. Come
to think of it......it crashed. Oh well, at least I wasn't in it at the
time.
BSBD
Colin Fitzmaurice http://www.tilstock.demon.co.uk
The Parachute Centre
Tilstock Airfield
Whitchurch
Shropshire SY13 2HA
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1948 841111
Gwyn Boehringer
stuff snipped here and there...
JumpUMagot <jumpu...@aol.com> wrote in article
> What prompted this response is the absurd attitude towards safety I've
been
> reading. What's getting to me is that a whole new crop of jumpers are
going to
> be raised in an atmosphere of "Hey, what did you expect, Air Force One?
Jump
> planes are at the bottom of the food chain." So, this generation of
jumpers get
> used to marginally maintained planes as the standard, but will accept
poorly
> maintained planes.
I feel this is a catch 22. Being a new jumper (174 jumps), I have tried to
keep my eyes open and learn as much as I can about safety in this sport.
Because I am new and I am not a pilot, I have to rely on people I trust for
information about the safety of the aircraft and jumping as a whole.
Obviously it is my butt on the line, and I want it to be safe. However, it
seems many times when I have mentioned safety issues, or seen safety
brought up on this newsgroup or at DZs, quite a few jumpers are quick to
call out "safety nazi" and make comments similar to "kill em all and let
God sort em out." I am not talking about nagging "everything done per CFR
or BSR requirements, no exceptions" kind of attitudes, I am talking about
serious questions regarding safety.
> Vote with your feet.
> Vote with your wallet.
> ..or vote with your life.
I guess it just depends on how large the jumpships are at the DZ in
question, and how close the jumpers are to another DZ.
Let's face it, this sport is an addiction, we are the addicts, and the DZO
is the dealer. Once through student status, how many jumpers actually care
how the student program is being ran? So the DZ is using non-rated JMs,
who cares? So that new tandem master has already broken two student's legs
because he consistently flares too high...big deal, it's not my leg. And
after student status, how many jumpers actually pay attention to how the
planes are being maintained? What condition are the fuel tanks? Are A&P
mechanics being used or is Bubba from down the road allowed to work on the
planes just because he will work for free or darn cheap? Are TSO'd parts
being used, or cheaper parts?
People will not leave DZs with big planes to drive to a DZ farther away
which only has cessnas. Jumpers at cessna DZs will not leave if there is
not another DZ within a couple of hours from their homes. We all know
quitting is not an option. Jumpers will stay where they are, and hope that
nothing bad ever happens. Most of the time, most of them won't even speak
up about their concerns because they are afraid they will be told to leave.
This sport has been likened to a heroin addiction too many times to count,
and junkies are going to do whatever they have to do to get their fix.
Sometimes this means ignoring what is right or wrong, ruining friendships
or marriages, or ignoring personal safety. Wish it wasn't so, but for the
majority, it is.
Gwyn
Skydive Lost Prairie
Colin Fitzmaurice <co...@tilstock.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I had the opportunity to make two "low pass over the DZ" jumps from
40 Tango. Both times, it was the left engine. On one, the exit was
so strung out that I asked for a go around and got it.
The latest FAA data-base shows that N140T is now on a Beech B-60 based
in the Los Angeles area.
Anyone know where the old C-47 is at or what happened to it ?
Fred
D-3784
>Anyone remember jumping 40 Tango in Z'Hills years ago? If you got to
>13,000' with two engines still turning it was always a nice bonus :)
>BSBD
>Colin Fitzmaurice http://www.tilstock.demon.co.uk
>The Parachute Centre
>Tilstock Airfield
>Whitchurch
>Shropshire SY13 2HA
>United Kingdom
>+44 (0)1948 841111
------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
SKYDIVE LOST PRAIRIE, MONTANA
31st Annual Boogie - 1998
July 25 through August 3
Super Otter Skyvan Porter
EXCELLENT PARTY -- BEAUTIFUL SCENERY
CLOSE TO GLACIER NATIONAL PARK
ADDITIONAL DROP ZONE INFORMATION AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
FFI: VOICEPHONE 1 (888) 833-5867 or 1 (406) 858-2493
FAX 1 (406) 858-2405
E-MAIL skyd...@digisys.net
HOME PAGE www.onedge.com/slp
SEE YOU THERE !!!
Glen Baker
Tina Marie (ti...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
> True. I can, however, give you an example where installing safety
> wire made things _less_ safe. [..story about safety wiired stud..]
So therefore it's not a good idea to safety wire the oil screen?
> I don't have a problem
> with any of this stuff as a _jumper_. As a pilot, I'd have a lot more
> questions to ask, because my level of responsibility is much higher.
Confusing. As a jumper you don't have as high of a safety standard as
you do when you're a pilot? How incredibly odd.
> This is one of the reasons why I don't like flying rentals. As a pilot,
> I have a responsibility to get my passengers on the ground in one piece.
> If I don't know how the maintenance is being done, I'm ignoring a large
> part of my responsibilty. Pilots in general should be more aware of
> mantenance issues - but this isn't the group for that discussion.
Ah, but it is. As jumpers we depend on the DZ to be doing just such
maintenance. If it's not being done then they are ignoring a large part
of their responsibility.
> If he'd have had a current weather briefing,
> he'd have known it was going to fog up, or at least that there would
> have been low clouds. And fog rarely forms right before sunset - it
> forms right _after_ sunset, so he dropped that last load after sunset
Spoken by somebody who has never flown on the west coast. We get costal fog
*before* sunset quite often. I've done a couple gorgeous sunset loads where
the fog bank was approaching the DZ. Absolutely beautiful watching the
sun set on the fog while under canopy.
> I'm saying that imperfect
> maintenance isn't any different - it's just more likely to get pushed
> under the rug and ignored. It shouldn't be. But it is, and this
> drop zone (in KS, right?) seems, if anything, better then a lot.
Wait a sec...in the first message you were claiming that you weren't bothered
by the list of squawks. Now you seem to be saying that these things
shouldn't be ignored. Which is it?
..glen
Tina Marie
In article <6hiu1s$6...@canyon.sr.hp.com>, Glen Baker <g...@sr.hp.com> wrote:
>> True. I can, however, give you an example where installing safety
>
> So therefore it's not a good idea to safety wire the oil screen?
I didn't say that. I said safety wire != more safe.
> Confusing. As a jumper you don't have as high of a safety standard as
> you do when you're a pilot? How incredibly odd.
Of course I don't! When I'm jumping, I'm responsible for my own
safety. When I'm flying, I'm responsible for the safety of my
passengers, and I'm responsible for returning the plane to the ground
in one piece. When I'm jumping, I just care that _I'm_ going to get
to the ground in one piece.
Would you feel safe taking a tandem passenger on every jump that you do?
It's the same principle.
> Ah, but it is. As jumpers we depend on the DZ to be doing just such
> maintenance. If it's not being done then they are ignoring a large part
> of their responsibility.
That's true. That's why jumpers _should_ have an idea of what kind
of maintenance gets done at their drop zone. Most don't. I wouldn't
think of renting a plane without having some clue about the general
condition...yet jumpers get in planes every weekend, and they have
no clue!
Even worse, they don't care enough to learn....
> Spoken by somebody who has never flown on the west coast. We get costal fog
> *before* sunset quite often. I've done a couple gorgeous sunset loads where
> the fog bank was approaching the DZ. Absolutely beautiful watching the
> sun set on the fog while under canopy.
You're right, and I thought about that after I posted it. I think the
same thing happens in valleys. I stand by my original statement, though,
since the planes in question are in Kansas, which is neither on a
coast nor in the mountains.
>> I'm saying that imperfect
>> maintenance isn't any different - it's just more likely to get pushed
>> under the rug and ignored. It shouldn't be. But it is, and this
>> drop zone (in KS, right?) seems, if anything, better then a lot.
>
> Wait a sec...in the first message you were claiming that you weren't bothered
> by the list of squawks. Now you seem to be saying that these things
> shouldn't be ignored. Which is it?
I'm saying that the squawks are less important then a lot of other
things that happen at drop zones. Jumpers through clouds, pilots
flying with no fuel reserves, lack of pilot spin training, and so on.
In fact, in the whole scheme of things, they're really trivial.
(I was talking to one of our hanger-mates last night, and telling him
some of the stuff on the list. I thought he was going to fall off his
ladder laughing when I told him about the missing compass correction
card.)
Things I'd most like to see fixed in skydiving aviation:
Recurrency training for twin pilots should be required.
Spin training for pilots should be required.
Tandem students should be told that the airplane they are getting into
_is not_ as safe as an airliner. We tell 'em that the jump is dangerous,
why do we not tell them that the plane ride is dangerous as well?
Radio operators should undergo _some_ kind of training.
AADs should be outlawed (I'm just kidding!!! Honest!!)
Somewhere way below all this is better maintenace.
I'd love it if there was never another plane crash. But even perfect
maintenace won't make that possible. Part 121 (scheduled airlines)
has the best maintenance money can buy - yet we still see a recurring
rudder problem in 737s, a 747 that blew up for no apparent reason, and
ATRs that couldn't deal with icing behind their boots!
Skydiving operators walk a fine line. In general, they do a good
job at getting the important stuff fixed. Sometimes the trivial stuff
doesn't get fixed. Do you fix every single thing that goes wrong with
your car? No, you keep the steering and brakes in good shape, and
let the rust in the wheel wells go. It's the same principle.
I honestly think that improved pilot training would save a lot more
lives then running to the FAA, bitching that prop spinners have been
stop drilled.
Tina Marie
(who _still_ hasn't figured out how you crack a spinner...)
William Gere
TINA:
AS I SAID IN MY PRIVATE EMAIL TO YOU. (but more politely at that time)
YOU SHOULD SHUT THE FUCK UP
YOUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING CAUSES DEATH
William Gere
Tina:
As a jumper ... you're naive
As a pilot your are reckless a menace
Remember all
For every FAR, AD, SB someone, somewhere lost their life
TooyT
>From: "William Gere" <wg...@email.msn.com> Wrote:
>Tina:
>As a jumper ... you're naive
>As a pilot your are reckless a menace
Tina Marie, I rember you as being kinda shy. See what people
on the Skydive ng do if you have an openion? Doan bend over
lakk a Sheep and take it girl, SLAM the Anal LEG's ;-* snuffy
Avi8oR4u
Tina said>> I stand by my original statement, though,
>coast nor in the mountains.
Tina
Since you know nothing of the facts and continue to ramble with meaningless
rhetoric; I ask you kindly to shut your cake hole and allow the folks who have
benificial information to speak without being quoted with your irrelevant,
ramshakle opinions and gossip.
BTY
The aircraft are located in Independence, MO not KS.
Sincerely
Tony
Michelle Hoyle
Tina Marie wrote:
> In article <6hiu1s$6...@canyon.sr.hp.com>, Glen Baker <g...@sr.hp.com> wrote:
> > Confusing. As a jumper you don't have as high of a safety standard as
> > you do when you're a pilot? How incredibly odd.
>
> Of course I don't! When I'm jumping, I'm responsible for my own
> safety. When I'm flying, I'm responsible for the safety of my
> passengers, and I'm responsible for returning the plane to the ground
> in one piece. When I'm jumping, I just care that _I'm_ going to get
> to the ground in one piece.
Remind me not to jump with her ...
'Shell
--
e-mail: michell...@ualberta.ca
http://www.ualberta.ca/~mhoyle/michelle.htm
--
We are born naked, wet and hungry. Then things get worse.
--
Tina Marie
In article <6hitbg$g5o$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <bil...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
> well, but see - most jumpers don't know what questions to ask. you do.
>and i guess it worried me a little that here's one of the few people who could
>ask the right questions, get the answers, and understand them. and your take
>on the whole thing was - the plane's fine. if that's the case, and your take
>on it is sort of a typical response, i think we'll continue to see crashes and
>fatalities at least partly due to aircraft maintenance problems.
Oh, come on. According to USPA, 17% of all jumpers are pilots of some
form. I'm just the one who opened her big mouth on the 'net. 100 hour
private pilots have a propensity to do that. :)
I'm not sure that I ever said, "The plane's fine". I said that based
on what was posted, I wouldn't have a problem jumping out of or riding
in their planes.
I don't jump in Kansas. I've never seen their planes. My only information
is what was posted right here. Whoever posted that list said, effectively,
"Look! There are all these terrible things wrong with their planes!
You shouldn't jump there!" I said, "Look, most of this stuff is trivia,
and none of it is life-threatening."
> i saw a friend of mine die when the engine on the plane he was flying
>blew. it was just one cylinder, and the engine continued to run for about 30
>seconds. he could have landed on the sod farm he was over, but he didn't. he
>tried for the runway. even on base he could have aborted the turn to final
>and landed at lufker (airport 100 yards west.) he didn't, so he died. and in
>a lot of ways it was his fault. still, if the engine hadn't come apart, he
>would be alive today, and davey would not be a quadriplegic. and had you
>looked at the squack sheet on 5010D just before it crashed it would have been
>about the same as the list on the first GKSC plane.
This is what I meant about pilot training. You're right - the engine
shouldn't have failed. But it could just have easily had perfect
maintenance, and gotten a batch of bad fuel. Fixing the prop spinner
and putting a new compass correction card in the plane wouldn't have
kept him alive - some recurrent training might have.
The PTS says that student pilots must receive training in engine
failures on takeoff before they're allowed to solo. Turning back to
the runway when you don't have the altitude is right up there in
brilliance with a 90 degree turn at 25 ft to avoid a hanger.
> so i guess the question you have to ask yourself is - is that OK? is it
>OK to have planes that require excellent judgement, reactions and flying
>skills from pilots because there's so much wrong with them? because i have
>noticed that pilots are a lot like people. they make mistakes. a plane in
>good working order is pretty forgiving of mistakes, but a plane like the one
>described in the previous post sounds like it is not. 5010D was not, and i
>saw the result.
The average pilot flys a rental. bill, you rent. You've got stories
out the wazoo about flaps where only one dropped, a radio that died
enroute, and an alternator failure, IIRC. We see stories every week
on rec.aviation.student about students who take a plane up only to find
the alternator won't work, the nose strut is flat, the radios don't
work, vacuum pump goes in flight...it happens all the time. We're
flying 30+ year old aircraft! Stuff is going to break.
I don't think anything on that squawk sheet required "excellent judgement,
reactions, and flying skills". No vacuum pump? I was required to
be able to perform the PTS instrument tasks (climbs, descents, turns)
in a plane with a needle, ball and airspeed (and wet compass - no DG)
as part of my checkride. It didn't even have a vacuum system! Lose a
piece of prop? Pull the power back, find a place to land. There wasn't
anything on that list that a newly-minted private pilot shouldn't have
been able to handle.
> you know, i looked into that a while back. (this is the ASRS form, i
>assume.) and if you read the fine print, it basically says that they can't
>get you in trouble for information on the form. but if you buzz some
>airliner, and the pilot files a report, and you land and mail the card just as
>soon as you possibly can, you still get busted. they just can't use
>whatever's on the card against you.
Nope. From the NASA web page:
---
The FAA offers ASRS reporters further guarantees and incentives to report.
It has committed itself not to use ASRS information against reporters in
enforcement actions. It has also chosen to waive fines and penalties,
subject to certain limitations, for unintentional violations of federal
aviation statutes and regulations which are reported to ASRS. The FAA's
initiation, and continued support of the ASRS program and its willingness
to waive penalties in qualifying cases is a measure of the value it places
on the safety information gathered, and the products made possible, through
incident reporting to the ASRS.
---
From the Limitations section:
2. FAA policies regarding the ASRS are covered by Advisory Circular 00-46C,
FAR 91.25, and paragraph 2-38 in the "Facility Operations and Administration"
Handbook (7210.3M). The waiver of penalties is subject to the following
limitations: (A) the alleged violation must be inadvertent and not
deliberate, (B) it must not reveal an event subject to Section 609 of the
Federal Aviation Act, (C) the reporter must not have been found guilty of
a violation of the FAR's or the Federal Aviation Act during the preceeding
five years, and (D) the ASRS report must be submitted within 10 days of the
event.
---
So, as long as you didn't do it delibrately, haven't been found guilty of
breaking an FAR in the last 5 years, and don't do whatever
is in 609 (I can't find a section 609 anywhere on the net - I'm pretty
sure this is, "You didn't commit a crime"), you're off the hook.
From the FAA (AC 00-46D, the current rev of the Advisory Circular referenced
above):
---
c.The filing of a report with NASA concerning an incident or occurrence
involving a violation of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, or the FAR is considered
by FAA to be indicative of a constructive attitude. Such an attitude will
tend to prevent future violations. Accordingly, although a finding of
violation may be made, neither a civil penalty nor certificate suspension
will be imposed if:
1.the violation was inadvertent and not deliberate;
2.the violation did not involve a criminal offense, or accident,
or action under 49 U.S.C. Section 44709 which discloses a lack of
qualification or competency, which is wholly excluded from this policy;
3.the person has not been found in any prior FAA enforcement action
to have committed a violation of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, or any
regulation promulgated there for a period of 5 years prior to the
date of occurrence; and
4.the person proves that, within 10 days after the violation,
he or she completed and delivered or mailed a written report of
the incident or occurrence to NASA under ASRS. See paragraphs 5c and 7b.
---
> most accidents are. but aircraft maintenance problems can often turn a
>pilot error into a fatal error.
You're right. And pilot error can turn a trivial maintenance problem
into a fatal error. How many pilots die every year because a door
pops open on takeoff, and they forget to fly the plane while they try
to close the door?
> we talk a lot about self-regulation here. but if the level of
>self-regulation we apply to the condition of our aircraft is so low that a
>plane that won't pass an annual is "better than average," we're doing less
>than nothing, and all the talk of self-regulation is just that - talk. what
>we're really doing is seeing what we can get away with, and that sucks.
If you want Part 135 reliability, then go for it. Buzz runs a progressive
DZ - get him to implement it. Until then, you're right, we get exactly
what we are willing to put up with. I just don't think that what we have
is bad enough to get upset about.
You're right - we just lost a plane because of what could have been bad
maintenance. So right now, everybody is upset about maintenance. But
what happened last year when we lost a Cessna because of a departure
stall? Nobody started yelling about pilot training. What about the
stall/spin in Florida? We still don't have mandatory spin training
for pilots. The Otter pilot in Perris who feathered the wrong engine?
We still don't require recurrency training for our twin pilots.
And nothing will be done now about maintenance. My point was that this
DZ, which is being held up right now as a terrible place that doesn't
take care of their planes, is, in fact, not bad compared to your
average Cessna drop zone, or, for that matter, your average rental
172. If you want to change that, push for Part 135 compliance for
all drop zones. Until then, the best we can do is try to educate
jumpers about what is and isn't important - which was the point
of my original breakdown of that list.
Tina Marie
In article <199804212226...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Avi8oR4u <avi8...@aol.com> wrote:
>Since you know nothing of the facts and continue to ramble with meaningless
>rhetoric; I ask you kindly to shut your cake hole and allow the folks who have
>benificial information to speak without being quoted with your irrelevant,
>ramshakle opinions and gossip.
I give up. I'm done posting on the topic.
Allen F. Chastain
maybe y'all should retitle this thread "tina season opens @
rec.skydiving"
bil...@qualcomm.com
In article <6hj1tt$o4a$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
ti...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Tina Marie) wrote:
> Skydiving operators walk a fine line. In general, they do a good
> job at getting the important stuff fixed. Sometimes the trivial stuff
> doesn't get fixed. Do you fix every single thing that goes wrong with
> your car? No, you keep the steering and brakes in good shape, and
> let the rust in the wheel wells go. It's the same principle.
maybe this is where the crux of the problem is. on a car you can do
that. cars are easily tested on the ground. they are easily stopped if you
have a problem. once stopped, you can easily get out of them. if you leave
them parked there after getting out they will not fly a few miles and crash in
a housing development.
airplanes are not like that. many problems do not show up until you are
in the air. once they do show up you can't just stop. you must descend, get
back to the airport, and land, and that's a complex process. once the fire
starts you can't just stand on the brakes, stop the plane, get out and run
away. it is inherently different from driving in that respect.
however, lots of DZO's treat planes like cars. "i been flyin jumpers in
this plane for ten years! i know better than some A+P what needs to be safety
wired." and they pull out their trusty hammer and get to work. they learn
aircraft maintenance by the school of hard knocks - if the engine stalls
because a bolt came out, well, maybe it's a good idea to safety wire that one.
but all too often, a maintenance problem that would be minor in a car proves
fatal in an airplane.
much of the maintenance requirements, AD's and flight restrictions for
aircraft were written in blood. you know why they require those stops on the
seat tracks? because someone didn't have them and died when their seat rolled
back, not because some bureaucrat thought he'd like another regulation. and
to me, that seems like a good reason.
so if someone wants to pick and choose what to fix on a plane, he can
learn from experience and eventually know as much as the people who put
together the maintenance standards for the plane originally. but all too
often that experience means broken airplanes and dead people. or he can work
from what other people have learned and avoid that kind of learning curve.
again, this does not necessarily have anything to do with this crash
we're discussing. i have no idea what happened, or what condition their
planes are in. i don't believe everything i read here. but at least it's
getting people talking about DZ aircraft maintenance, which is a topic that is
(i hope!) important to a lot of jumpers.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, William Gere wrote:
> TINA:
> AS I SAID IN MY PRIVATE EMAIL TO YOU. (but more politely at that time)
> YOU SHOULD SHUT THE FUCK UP
> YOUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING CAUSES DEATH
Dialogue leads to understanding. "Shut the fuck up" is not dialogue.
Get a grip.
rl
William Gere
Tina
Don't you know when to quit?
I pity the guy you marry/are married to
bil...@qualcomm.com
In article <6hj83b$238$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
ti...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Tina Marie) wrote:
> I don't jump in Kansas. I've never seen their planes. My only information
> is what was posted right here. Whoever posted that list said, effectively,
> "Look! There are all these terrible things wrong with their planes!
> You shouldn't jump there!" I said, "Look, most of this stuff is trivia,
> and none of it is life-threatening."
i guess there are scales of things. you could say a mal isn't life
threatening cause you have a reserve. you could say a reserve low-speed mal
isn't life threatening if you're jumping over water. so should we be OK with
reserve mals?
some of that stuff is trivia, you're right. but some isn't. blown oil
cooler hoses, electrical systems failures and blown cylinders have killed
people, and given that, i'd find it very hard to call them
non-life-threatening.
> The average pilot flys a rental. bill, you rent. You've got stories
> out the wazoo about flaps where only one dropped, a radio that died
> enroute, and an alternator failure, IIRC. We see stories every week
> on rec.aviation.student about students who take a plane up only to find
> the alternator won't work, the nose strut is flat, the radios don't
> work, vacuum pump goes in flight...it happens all the time. We're
> flying 30+ year old aircraft! Stuff is going to break.
yeah, but then i land and get it fixed. so far i've been OK with the
problems i've had in flight. if i'd had them all at once because i was flying
a poorly-maintained plane, or because i put off fixing them, i might not be.
i can fly on instruments to save my life (and have, once or twice.) i can't
do that if they're all broken because i figured i didn't need them on this
nice, sunny afternoon that just suddenly got cloudy.
> >soon as you possibly can, you still get busted. they just can't use
> >whatever's on the card against you.
>
> Nope. From the NASA web page:
interesting. i talked to an examiner at the NY/farmingdale FSDO who said,
basically, whoever files first wins. ATC files a complaint before your letter
gets there? you get busted. they wait a while, then file after they get (and
respond to) your letter? since you could claim they are responding to your
letter, you're off the hook. but (he said) simply mailing it does not
automatically get you off the hook.
but he was an old guy anyway.
> You're right - we just lost a plane because of what could have been bad
> maintenance. So right now, everybody is upset about maintenance. But
> what happened last year when we lost a Cessna because of a departure
> stall? Nobody started yelling about pilot training. What about the
> stall/spin in Florida? We still don't have mandatory spin training
> for pilots. The Otter pilot in Perris who feathered the wrong engine?
> We still don't require recurrency training for our twin pilots.
i don't think we should be requiring anything over what we do now. i just
think we should try to meet the current requirements and not skimp on
maintenance because this or that "just isn't important." in the ideal world,
the plane fails very rarely, and when it does, the pilot is good enough to
handle the failure. in the real world we have some bad aircraft and some bad
pilots. the combination can be fatal. we can reduce the risk of
aircraft-related fatalities by reducing the incidence of both. pilot keeps
stalling the plane on jump run? don't fly with him. aircraft missing its
elevator trim tab? don't fly in it.
or accept both, and also accept the increased risk of your own death and
the death of your friends. i'd rather not.
> And nothing will be done now about maintenance. My point was that this
> DZ, which is being held up right now as a terrible place that doesn't
> take care of their planes, is, in fact, not bad compared to your
> average Cessna drop zone, or, for that matter, your average rental
> 172.
well, but keep in mind that we still don't know what happened there.
there's a pretty bad feud going on there, and i would be a bit suspicious of
any "facts" that get posted until they get confirmed by someone you trust.
i'm glad he did post the list, because it's an absolute - you can prove or
disprove that those things really exist on the plane. but i hope no one is
taking it as gospel (yet.)
> If you want to change that, push for Part 135 compliance for
> all drop zones.
how about we come up with a new maintenance standard, one a little less
stringent than part 135 but still safe? one good for people who own their
planes but don't fly paying passengers in them? one you could use for, say,
rental aircraft?
fortunately we have such standards, and they are outlined in part 91.
all we have to do is maintain planes to that standard. it's not hard, but you
do have to follow the rules.
> Until then, the best we can do is try to educate
> jumpers about what is and isn't important - which was the point
> of my original breakdown of that list.
i agree 100%. but when trying to decide what's important to maintain and
what's not important to maintain on a plane, i find that i tend to believe the
manufacturer. experience is a harsh teacher. i'd rather not learn that i
need to safety-wire the fuel system by having an inflight fire, if following
the published procedures can prevent it.
common sense still applies, of course. if you have a broken cupholder
you don't need to ground the airplane. if the alternator ground cable comes
loose, you can probably fly the plane back to the FBO to get it fixed. but
deciding you don't need to fix it because you don't really need it? that
scares me, because it probably got put there as the result of someone's death.
John Pearce
Tina Marie wrote:
>
> >aircraft. You had a very long list here and overlooked the obvious
> >entirely, which is that it is a long list.
>
> It was something like 17 things, on two different planes. I don't
> think I'd call that a "long list"
>
We will just have to differ on that opinion.
> I thought about this, and, being me, did a bit of research. Called the
> Houston FSDO, and the person I talked to there said it was up to the
> manufacturer, but there wasn't any reason _in general_ why stop-drilling
> the crack wasn't acceptable - as long as the manufacturer didn't have
That response from a FSDO officer means he likely didn't know, more of a
lawyer than a mechanic. Sight the manufacturer and avoid any liability.
>
> Then I went off to the NTSB reports, looking for any incidents where
> a propeller spinner contributed to an accident. The first one was
snip... (bunch of 'spinner' examples)
>
> >All this takes less than 5 seconds and your left with a plane that has
> >no CG and it is likely that centrifugal forces will keep everyone inside
> >until impact. No wait, the pilot could have gotten out and maybe a
>
> I'd love a reference for this, because the NTSB reports don't match
> this statement (they go back to '83 online).
>
You being you seem to do research without being able to think at the
same time. Well, I must admit my complicity here as my response as
written did not indicate that any sort of 'prop damage' can cause some
portion of a propeller to separate from the aircraft. That is what you
should have been researching, forget the spinner. Obviously a spinner
is right there with the prop and if it comes apart there is a chance for
many things to happen. A piece of the spinner could become a bullet
that could enter the cabin. A piece of the prop could become a bullet.
An engine could separate from the airframe due to the imbalance.
However you did not see these possibilities in all of that time doing
your research. I understand your a pilot, you should get some training
miss, and find an instructor that considers pilot attitude and the
ability to reason to be as important as motor skills.
I achieved my ASEL in 1977 and at that time there had been a few
instances similar to what I had described over the years, though no,
none had involved a spinner cap. One in particular happened to a pilot
that I knew. He and a friend of mine, both low hour pilots decided to
spend the day flying and doing some water skiing. They belonged to the
same club and were to fly to a dirt airstrip at a desert lake here in
AZ. My friend flew the outbound leg as he needed soft field landing
experience more than the other fellow. The second pilot was to fly the
return and they were to split the cost. They met some friends who had
towed their boat to the lake and spent a few hours on skis. On the
return flight, both pilots preflighted the aircraft (just for practice,
as they had in the morning) and found that something had hit the prop,
likely a rock on landing. Neither of them had heard anything that
sounded suspicious, but the knick in the prop was not there when they
departed. The description I was given of the ding was 'half the size of
your little fingernail'. We have big hands and further explanation
yielded something I felt was less than 1/2 inch long and maybe 1/8 of an
inch deep. My friend decided to ride home with the boat people and
tried to persuade the dead guy to do the same. His admonishments, his
certainty of his knowledge, his humor at my friends cautiousness all
remind me of your 'what's the big deal' attitude. Alas, about 15 min
into the flight that knick turned into a crack and half of one propeller
separated, followed by the engine seconds later, motor mounts torn right
from the airframe. (PA28-161) It has been guessed that he was climbing
at high power the entire time. He enjoyed going as high as he could,
even on short trips. I'm told that if you can pull the power quickly
enough you can keep the nose weight (engine) in place, but you have to
be very quick and it is unlikely that most pilots would react that
quickly during cruise, in 'cruise mental mode' where a hand is not on
the power.
With your acceptance of so much impropriety I expect to be reading an
incident report explaining your demise in whatever detail can be
gathered. IMHO I feel we have already learned anything you have to
teach us so it will be a complete waste of life.
--
John Pearce
Phoenix AZ
John Pearce
Tina Marie wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that I could. In email that I sent to somebody, I made a
> point that I obviously didn't make clearly here - I don't have a problem
> with any of this stuff as a _jumper_. As a pilot, I'd have a lot more
> questions to ask, because my level of responsibility is much higher.
>
Ah... but you do have a greater level of responsibility than you
realize. Your cavalier statements on this usenet group could influence
people here, people you don't even know. I've read your posts for some
time, and generally you seem bright, your well educated, and you
communicate very well. It is very reasonable that someone might
remember what you say when they have observed some questionable aircraft
and are considering if they should get inside. At your DZ's where you
are well known, I can easily picture class A jumpers (or anyone really)
looking up to you, knowing your a pilot also and just following you into
a plane. I know that is not good and your wanting people to think about
safety on their own is part of the reason you participated in this
thread to begin with. None the less, that is the state of skydiving
today, and forever really. To make good judgements regarding what are
acceptable maintenance items to forgive one should become an A&P.
People are not going to do that, and even if they did. An A&P is NOT an
engineer. They follow rules provided by a large number of great minds,
rules of design, rules established from the death of others.
> Everyone seems to have this idea that declaring an emergency is a really
> terrible thing to have to do. I've never done it (and I hope I never have
> to!), but it really isn't a horrible thing. Most of the time, you have
> to land, then call the controller and explain what happened. Very, very
> rarely, you have to write a letter of explaination. That's it. The
> controller has some paperwork to fill out, but that's about it.
That depends on where it happens, among other things. Still, this is
not something that should be considered when deciding on declaring an
emergency. Nothing should be considered but the situation itself. I
declared an emergency when caught IMC as a 100 hour pilot flying from
Bakersfield to Phx. About 90 miles west of Phx I announced my
predicament to Albequrque center and advised them to keep all legal
aircraft away from me, I was dangerous. They very nicely gave me
vectors to railroad tracks, pinpointed my location for me on the map,
and gave me a heading to follow the tracks. In the desert here the
tracks were at 1,000 MSL with mountains about 10 miles to each side. I
decended until I could see straight down (about 15 minutes) and found
the tracks. When I broke out of the scud I followed the tracks to a
small town airport and set the puppy down. I rented a car, went home
and drove back the next day to retrieve the aircraft. This was a freak
condition, I had the chief pilots blessing to take off, we did the
weather briefing together. A number of pilots were caught that day. I
was never asked to provide any explanation, though they had it all on
tape. :)
--
John Pearce
jpe...@uswest.net
Phoenix AZ
John Pearce
William Gere wrote:
>
> TINA:
> AS I SAID IN MY PRIVATE EMAIL TO YOU. (but more politely at that time)
> YOU SHOULD SHUT THE FUCK UP
> YOUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING CAUSES DEATH
Heavens sir... that's terrible. I hate to see that. While responding
to this thread I didn't follow a rule I try to keep in mind. Attach and
idea, not the person. Though I didn't do as well as I should I didn't
go this far foul. If I can, I would urge you to be more verbose and
less obtuse.
John Pearce
bil...@qualcomm.com wrote:
>
> > Skydiving operators walk a fine line. In general, they do a good
> > job at getting the important stuff fixed. Sometimes the trivial stuff
> > doesn't get fixed. Do you fix every single thing that goes wrong with
> > your car? No, you keep the steering and brakes in good shape, and
> > let the rust in the wheel wells go. It's the same principle.
>
> maybe this is where the crux of the problem is. on a car you can do
> that. cars are easily tested on the ground. they are easily stopped if you
> have a problem. once stopped, you can easily get out of them. if you leave
> them parked there after getting out they will not fly a few miles and crash in
> a housing development.
>
Absolutely Bill, a car is missing both the pitch and the roll axis, and
one entire dimension. There is NO correlation meaningful between cars
and planes.
William Gere
My credibility isn't in question, only my good manners and sense of
civility.
As a pilot, I take maintenance and pilot training quite seriously.
If you want to kill yourself, go ahead, but I'll not stand by and listen to
ideas that can and do kill my friends.
John Pearce
AzSkydivr wrote:
>
> > You know, if that's the attitude Tina has toward flying then I certainly<BR>
> > *would* have a problem getting into any aircraft for which she was<BR>
> > responsible
>
> I work in aircraft maintenance and would have no problem getting in a plane
> with her at the stick. She seems to know a good deal more about maintenace
> than the average pilot. The stick actuators I normally deal with live by the
> philosophy "if it'll start, it'll taxi. if it'll taxi it'll fly"
>
> Ron
Unless your a pilot too Ron I would reserve that judgement if I were
you. She seems to be interested in learning more than the average bear,
but there is a reason why there is a license to be a pilot, and one to
be an A&P. One does not qualify you to be the other. Also, with both
tickets you should still hold an engineering degree if your not going to
follow established procedures.
John Pearce
--
John Pearce
Phoenix AZ
AzSkydivr
FREFALLGUY
> i don't believe everything i read here. but at least it's
>getting people talking about DZ aircraft maintenance, which is a topic that
>is (i hope!) important to a lot of jumpers.
Amen. Way back in the beginning of this thread I tried to get a
discussion going on what DZs could do to provide information (in
laymen's terms) to jumpers, and what jumpers could do to educate
themselves about the basics of aircraft maintenance. (or maybe I
started a whole other thread on the topic and it died, whatever)
Anyway, my point is that I have found this to be an informative
thread. Along the way a lot of people have made some very good
points. Tina has been on the receiving end of some slams that
may or may not be justified (I'm too ignorant of aircraft to judge),
but the net result of her posts is that issues were explored and
responses were made that I learned from, and without Tina's posts
I wouldn't have had a chance to read those viewpoints.
In summary, I agree with bill von that aircraft maintenance is
something that a lot of jumpers should be interested in. I do
plan on getting my pilot's license (once I'm out of school and
have an income), but in the meantime I'd like to learn more
about aircraft maintenance basics. I guess I should just go
read "rec.aviation.student" or something, but I just don't have
the time. I still think it would be great if DZs tried to schedule
some informal sessions where jumpers could learn some
basics from the local pilots and A&Ps. I know I'd be
interested.
Blue Skies,
Marc
FREFALLGUY
In article <#naGhYYb9GA.311@upnetnews03>, "William Gere" <wg...@email.msn.com>
writes:
>Tina
>Don't you know when to quit?
>I pity the guy you marry/are married to
Dear William,
I just wanted to thank you for the keen analysis, insight, and
logic that you have demonstrated in this post. You have
convinced me (and every other rational person) that your
opinion is correct.
Marc
(for all I know, you may be correct William, but personal
attacks don't do much for your credibility)
PaulCM
I have noted the list of aircraft violations posted to this group, regarding
the Independence, MO DZ. I am not accepting this as _proven_ at this time
though I am not disputing the list. However... has any causal link actually
been proven between any similar violations on the plane that crashed, as
causing the failure?
I have jumped (once) at a DZ where I became aware the Cessna was several
months overdue for it's annual, and never went there to jump again. There's
risk... and there's risk management. Neglecting or shorting safety-related
maintenance or repairs as SOP is a risk accumulation strategy I prefer to
avoid.
Paul M
crwmike
William Gere wrote:
>
> Tina
> Don't you know when to quit?
> I pity the guy you marry/are married to
I don't think that is fair. Tina is a relatively new skydiver and a
very new pilot. She is motivated and seems to make an above average
effort to be informed.
Being relatively inexperienced she, perhaps, ran her mouth a bit too
much and then 'vonnovacked' her responses with lengthy quotes from
technical manuals. So mark her down as a beginner a little too
motivated to share what she has learned and surmised. We have all been
guilty of that.
At _worst_ she was a bit too sweeping in her statements. I've never met
her, but reading her posts for a couple of years lead me to believe she
is bright, eager and motivated. She says what she has to say, does it
using her own name and hasn't hesitated to provide pertinent experience
(or lack of) when voicing her opinions.
Perhaps you could cut her a little slack.
Blue Skies,
Michael
D-6139
Rhonda Lea Kirk
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, William Gere wrote:
> Tina
> Don't you know when to quit?
> I pity the guy you marry/are married to
What is wrong with you?
Rhonda Lea Kirk
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, William Gere wrote:
> My credibility isn't in question, only my good manners and sense of
> civility.
How have you established your credibility with the newsgroup?
> As a pilot, I take maintenance and pilot training quite seriously.
> If you want to kill yourself, go ahead, but I'll not stand by and listen to
> ideas that can and do kill my friends.
Ideas don't kill people unless they are implemented. The way to avoid the
implementation of ideas is with dialogue that includes examples. Your idea
seems to be that if you don't like it, everyone else should shut the fuck
up.
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
> we talk a lot about self-regulation here. but if the level of
> self-regulation we apply to the condition of our aircraft is so low that a
> plane that won't pass an annual is "better than average," we're doing less
> than nothing, and all the talk of self-regulation is just that - talk. what
> we're really doing is seeing what we can get away with, and that sucks.
I'm not sure anyone ever thought that the aircraft portion of
the skydiving was "self regulated". FAA heavily regulates aircraft of
all sort, and the regulation of the aircraft we use today is becoming
heavier. The "enforcement" of that regulation frequently has been
spotty, but the regulations are there and are enforceable.
I am curious just what form you think self regulation should
take in this context. We are talking about the way a DZO runs
his business. Do you think USPA should have some role here? Should
the local S&TA be doing ramp checks? Should a preflight be part of
the first jump course?
I tend to think of self regulation as being regulation of
ones self. The BSR's are great guidelines and self regulation is
a case of CHOOSING to follow them. I don't follow them because the
S&TA is watching. If I chooose not to pay much attention to some
BSR because I don't see it as serving my best interests, that's
not "seeing what I can get away with" that IS self regulation.
I see stuff at all sorts of DZ's I consider to be unsafe.
It has sent me on my way at some DZ's and kept me from referring
students there. At others, I said something but modified my
own behavior to compensate. At still others I considered it
primarily a threat to other folks. I will point it out to those
folks when I see them. What more is it you want me to do?
I don't see calling the FAA, or the cops, as self regulation, that's
government regulation.
Kevin O'Connell
Robert Romey
Any questions about Tony's information?? Well every news media in KC broke
the story that Eric Rueff's family is sueing. The KC Star broke all the info
about the FAA list that they also acquired through the freedom of
information act. They also posted the altitudes and coroners reports.
Hopefully it is still on their home page, if not e-mail them and ask them
for the story. their address www.kcstar.com
Glen Baker
I wrote:
>> Confusing. As a jumper you don't have as high of a safety standard as
>> you do when you're a pilot? How incredibly odd.
To which Tina responded:
> Of course I don't! When I'm jumping, I'm responsible for my own
> safety. When I'm flying, I'm responsible for the safety of my
> passengers, and I'm responsible for returning the plane to the ground
> in one piece. When I'm jumping, I just care that _I'm_ going to get
> to the ground in one piece.
I think we have a serious disconnect here. Tina, you're original posting
would tend to indicate that you don't feel that the DZ is in any way
negligent for allowing such a lengthy squawk list. In fact you suggest
that we take the list to our local DZ and see what they think of it (OK,
I will). Yet at the same time you claim that if *you* were the one flying
the airplane the list would be unacceptable. This attitude just makes
me shake my head in disbelief.
You seem to have the attitude that "hey, since I'm gonna jump out anyway
the odds are I'm gonna survive so therefore these "minor" issues don't
ammount to anything". My attitude is "a plane crash is a bad thing regardless
of whether people survive or not". A lengthy squawk list will not
necessarily bring the plane to the ground in an uncontrolled fashion, but
it certainly makes me think twice about what's *not* on the list because
it just hasn't been noticed.
> Would you feel safe taking a tandem passenger on every jump that you do?
> It's the same principle.
No it's not at all the same principle. I would feel safe taking a tandem
passenger in any airplane that I fly. Once we depart the plane we are no
longer engaged in the same activity and the rules change.
> I'm saying that the squawks are less important then a lot of other
> things that happen at drop zones.
Straw man argument. The fact that there may or may not be other bad things
going on has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of poor maintenance.
You're merely trying to deflect attention from the issue at hand. Does
the word "orthoganal" mean anything to you?
> Do you fix every single thing that goes wrong with
> your car?
I very seldom use my car to climb to 13,500 feet with a load of paying
passengers. They're not comparable situations. You wanna try bringing
my bicycle into the argument too? How about my roller blades?
The point here is not that any one of the purported problems with these
particular airplanes (and I agree with bvn that it's best to view any
postings to the net with a suspicious eye) caused the crash in question.
Rather the issue is that a continued history of a long list of squawks
is indicative of a casual attitude toward maintenance that is very probably
unhealthy.
YMMV.
..glen
Glen Baker
As one of the persons debating Tina's viewpoint I have to respond to this.
Personal attacks are unwarranted. Tina is expressing some opinions that
are (in my opinion) dangerous, but she does so in an honest and
straightforward fashion without resorting to name calling, insults, or
profanity.
This allows us to focus on the issues, perhaps educate ourselves, and just
maybe become a bit safer in the process. Name calling, profanity, and
ad-hominem attacks are less then useless. Such activities merely degrade
the signal to noise ratio.
So, while I disagree with some of what Tina has to say, I will defend to
the death her right to tell such lies :-)
..glen
bil...@qualcomm.com
In article <6hkm7l$vkb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1,
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
> I see stuff at all sorts of DZ's I consider to be unsafe.
> It has sent me on my way at some DZ's and kept me from referring
> students there. At others, I said something but modified my
> own behavior to compensate. At still others I considered it
> primarily a threat to other folks. I will point it out to those
> folks when I see them. What more is it you want me to do?
> I don't see calling the FAA, or the cops, as self regulation, that's
> government regulation.
yeah, i don't either. that's sort of a cop-out. i think you have lots
of options without resorting to that. i think your way is a good one, and is
similar to what i do. first i mention something - "hey, it bugs me that the
radios don't work. are you gonna get them fixed?" then i mention it to the
other pilots, even the other jumpers if i think it affects their safety.
finally i leave. i did that once, and have not had to do it since
(fortunately.)
other people had some good ideas. paul m said:
>I have jumped (once) at a DZ where I became aware the Cessna was several
>months overdue for it's annual, and never went there to jump again. There's
>risk... and there's risk management. Neglecting or shorting safety-related
>maintenance or repairs as SOP is a risk accumulation strategy I prefer to
>avoid.
marc said:
>I do
>plan on getting my pilot's license (once I'm out of school and
>have an income), but in the meantime I'd like to learn more
>about aircraft maintenance basics. I guess I should just go
>read "rec.aviation.student" or something, but I just don't have
>the time. I still think it would be great if DZs tried to schedule
>some informal sessions where jumpers could learn some
>basics from the local pilots and A&Ps. I know I'd be
>interested.
i think if we take these two simple avenues - learn more about aircraft
maintenance, and be a little more vocal when we see problems - that would help
a lot.
> I am curious just what form you think self regulation should
> take in this context. We are talking about the way a DZO runs
> his business. Do you think USPA should have some role here?
not directly. they should play a role in educating jumpers, though.
there have been a few articles in parachutist that were great in terms of
getting skydivers more familiar with planes.
> Should the local S&TA be doing ramp checks?
i don't think so. some FAA inspectors screw up ramp checks. it's not an
easy task. would i even know whether an oil-pump AD on a 1956 cessna 182 was
completely complied with by looking at the engine logs? i'm not sure.
but i do think they can get involved. if the plane fails it's annual,
then the DZO "ferries it to a repair place to get it fixed" and in the process
happens to fly 40-50 loads, then yes, i think he should get involved. (don't
laugh, it's happened.) involved how? i'm not sure. at the very least by
telling the jumpers what's going on with the plane they are trusting their
lives to.
> Should a preflight be part of the first jump course?
good question. i don't think so, but it might have a place in a graduate
course. let me think about that.
> I tend to think of self regulation as being regulation of
> ones self.
i think self regulation is regulation of skydiving by skydivers. an
airplane crash can kill you. given that, i think every single person that
uses the plane has a legitimate interest in its maintenance.
-bill von
bil...@qualcomm.com
In article <#aNkr0Wb9GA.215@uppubnews03>#1/1,
"William Gere" <wg...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> TINA:
> AS I SAID IN MY PRIVATE EMAIL TO YOU. (but more politely at that time)
> YOU SHOULD SHUT THE FUCK UP
> YOUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING CAUSES DEATH
this is a newsgroup. we talk about stuff here. tina's talking about
airplane maintenance, coming from the viewpoint of both a jumper and a pilot.
i disagree with her, but she's got some good points. she's contributing
something by posting her thoughts. you're just making noise. which is your
right, but is also a pain in the ass to people reading this for its content.
if you really want to just flame people, try alt.flame. no one reads it,
and you can slam people to your heart's content.
TooyT
>From: g...@sr.hp.com (Glen Baker) Wrote:
>> Confusing. As a jumper you don't have as high of a safety standard as
>>> you do when you're a pilot? How incredibly odd.
>
> To which Tina responded:
>
>> Of course I don't! When I'm jumping, I'm responsible for my own
>> safety. When I'm flying, I'm responsible for the safety of my
>> passengers, and I'm responsible for returning the plane to the ground
>> in one piece. When I'm jumping, I just care that _I'm_ going to get
>> to the ground in one piece.
>
> I think we have a serious disconnect here. Tina, you're original posting
> would tend to indicate that you don't feel that the DZ is in any way
> negligent for allowing such a lengthy squawk list. In fact you suggest
> that we take the list to our local DZ and see what they think of it (OK,
> I will). Yet at the same time you claim that if *you* were the one flying
> the airplane the list would be unacceptable. This attitude just makes
> me shake my head in disbelief.
>
> You seem to have the attitude that "hey, since I'm gonna jump out anyway
> the odds are I'm gonna survive so therefore these "minor" issues don't
> ammount to anything". My attitude is "a plane crash is a bad thing
>regardless
> of whether people survive or not". A lengthy squawk list will not
> necessarily bring the plane to the ground in an uncontrolled fashion,
>it certainly makes me think twice about what's *not* on the list because
> it just hasn't been noticed.
>> Would you feel safe taking a tandem passenger on every jump that you do?
>> It's the same principle.
> No it's not at all the same principle. I would feel safe taking a tandem
> passenger in any airplane that I fly. Once we depart the plane we are no
> longer engaged in the same activity and the rules change.
>> I'm saying that the squawks are less important then a lot of other
>> things that happen at drop zones.
> Straw man argument. The fact that there may or may not be other bad things
> going on has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of poor maintenance.
> You're merely trying to deflect attention from the issue at hand.
***************************************************
YAWL KNOW I HATE TO BUTT IN~~~~~~BUT,
yer a bunch of whinning tittybaby LEG BITCH's that got
toooo much civilian training, and use a lot of big words ;-P
MY GOD YEW TALK LAKK little girls, cept little girls
probably got more BALLS!!!!!!!! ;-pppppppppppppp uss
Glen Baker
TooyT (to...@aol.com) wrote:
> YAWL KNOW I HATE TO BUTT IN~~~~~~BUT,
> yer a bunch of whinning tittybaby LEG BITCH's that got
> toooo much civilian training, and use a lot of big words ;-P
> MY GOD YEW TALK LAKK little girls, cept little girls
> probably got more BALLS!!!!!!!! ;-pppppppppppppp uss
Gosh thanks for that enlightened commentary. I guess that people dying
is no big deal and I'm just a whiner for giving a shit about it. Thank
god for people like TooyT who bring so much to the discussion.
I guess I'll now go toss both my vocabulary and my dictionary in the
trash and climb down the evolutionary ladder to fart and chew my cud
with what's-his-name.
..glen
TooyT
>From: bil...@qualcomm.com
>Date: Wed, Apr 22, 1998 14:21 EDT Wrote:
> ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
>I see stuff at all sorts of DZ's I consider to be unsafe.
Theirs an I&E down here in Texas thut see's to Novice's on his
own time. Graduation is when he sez" O.K. you are good enuff
to travel around and look after you're self on strange DZ's. "Not
wise to go before he sez thut though. ;-) snuffy
TooyT
***************************************************
yer welcome you LEG BITCH. ;-P snuffy
Rita
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, William Gere wrote:
>
> > Don't you know when to quit?
>
> What is wrong with you?
Sounds like he's got a bad case of DSB to me (dangerous sperm backup) ...
Bill, maybe you'd better take care of that, ahhhhhh, problem ... huh?
Blue ones,
--rita
TooyT
>From: Rita <kr...@philly.infi.net>
>Date: Wed, Apr 22, 1998 17:01 EDT -Wrote:
***************************************************
-See even I -larn from this Ng, I didn't know females produced
sperm. Shit I -shudda finished 9th grade!. ;-P snuffy
Winsor Naugler III
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, William Gere wrote:
> Tina
> Don't you know when to quit?
> I pity the guy you marry/are married to
>
Wow, I guess you MUST be in the right. I mean, why waste time addressing
issues on their own merits when you can cut to the chase and go directly to
abuse?
Your concern for Tina's SO is touching. Having such a global perspective as
you so obviously do, it is reassuring that you should take the time to share
your feelings with mere mortals. We are unworthy.
Tell me, what's it like to be a real pilot? Tina hasn't paid the kind of
dues that somebody as cool as you are obviously has, and I just want to know
if you were always that wonderful or it took years of hard work to become
the gem that you are.
I'm sure glad you took the time to put ol' Tina in her place. Yessir,
somebody has to keep these people with scary opinions under control. For
her to dare to offer an opinion that is contrary to yours is just pathetic,
and I hope she seeks your advice before posting any more of her half-baked
opinions. For being a sage, take-charge kind of guy who's willing to set
straight the people in the world who are just plain wrong, you are now my
hero.
Of course I feel so humble that I can barely bring myself to post this,
being in awe of your greatness, but I'm sure enough of your noble nature
that I'll just go ahead and send it.
Blue skies,
Winsor
Tom Beals
> This sport has been likened to a heroin addiction too many times to count,
>and junkies are going to do whatever they have to do to get their fix.
>Sometimes this means ignoring what is right or wrong, ruining friendships
>or marriages, or ignoring personal safety. Wish it wasn't so, but for the
>majority, it is.
>
>Gwyn
Sure, NOW you tell me this! Now that I am hopelessly hooked and at
the mercy of DZ owners everywhere. Not to mention the Sunshine
Factory with my own, very own, brand new out of the box pre-second
rig on order. (with a wait that is going to run into decades)
Aggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I CAN'T TAKE ANYMORE --- WHERE IS THE
DOOOR!!!! I gotta go jump.
Tom Beals
Tom Beals
>
> The point here is not that any one of the purported problems with these
> particular airplanes (and I agree with bvn that it's best to view any
> postings to the net with a suspicious eye) caused the crash in question.
> Rather the issue is that a continued history of a long list of squawks
> is indicative of a casual attitude toward maintenance that is very probably
> unhealthy.
Don't know much about planes. But the phrase "a continued history of
squawks is indicative of a casual attitude toward maintenance that is
very probably unhealthy" is worth repeating -- so I did.
I have worked most of my life in a hazardous enviornment. Men have
died because they got casual about the risks involved. Or because
others got casual. When small problems start appearing frequently it
is time to do some serious thinking.
Have fun - be safe - live long enough to be a problem to your
grandchildren.
Tom Beals
Mike Spurgeon
Tom Beals wrote:
>
> Have fun - be safe - live long enough to be a problem to your
> grandchildren.
Grandchildren are nature's way of letting you get even with your
kids.
BS
Mike Spurgeon
Christine
Tina Marie wrote:
>
> In article <199804212226...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> Avi8oR4u <avi8...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Since you know nothing of the facts and continue to ramble with meaningless
> >rhetoric; I ask you kindly to shut your cake hole and allow the folks who have
> >benificial information to speak without being quoted with your irrelevant,
> >ramshakle opinions and gossip.
>
> I give up. I'm done posting on the topic.
Probably the wisest thing you could do! You'll learn that the most
vocal people in the sport have little to do with logic or tolerance of
other points of view. There are correct and incorrect attitudes,
opinions and people in this sport. God help you if you find yourself on
the wrong end of the money chain.
..Christine..
FREFALLGUY
In article <353ea153...@news.ionet.net>, davi...@ionet.net (David)
writes:
>>-See even I -larn from this Ng, I didn't know females produced
>>sperm. Shit I -shudda finished 9th grade!. ;-P snuffy
>>
>
>Of course they do, usually about half-way to the bathroom.
ROTFLMFSO!
Crude, but funny as hell!
Marc
AzSkydivr
>RonUnless your a pilot too Ron I would reserve that judgement if I wereyou.
>She seems to be interested in learning more than the average bear,but there
>is a reason why there is a license to be a pilot, and one tobe an A&P. One
>does not qualify you to be the other. Also, with bothtickets you should
>still hold an engineering degree if your not going tofollow established
>procedures.-- John
You are correct that I do not always understand the ways of pilots. Especially
when they refuse my advice and decide to take aircraft with .... oh, say the
fuel system. My point was that Tina is being unfairly flamed for stating an
opinion. One that I don't entirely agree or disagree with.
TooyT
>From: azsk...@aol.com (AzSkydivr) Wrote:
>My point was that Tina is being unfairly flamed for stating an
>opinion. One that I don't entirely agree or disagree with.
**************************************************
Flaming is whut the Ng is about I think, people who carry a lot of fear but
supress it to look cool at the local DZ git on the Ng and
dump it. Kids with too much jiz like to have pissing contest on the
Ng. DZO's like to fry other DZ's. etc....etc..... And I guess its
cheaper fer the USPA to take the sports pulse by counting the
pints of blood spilled on the Ng. But mostly it seems to be a
venting place. Take when I first signed on, the Georgia DZ's
were going tooth and nail. Georgia skydivers in generall were
practicing fraterside. Me? I juz the old hot shot pouring gas
on the fire trying to cause it to burn out and then sprinkling
a little humor around to create new green. lately I been on a black
Leg Bitch kick. The DZO's wud probably pay my AOL account
off every month to keep it from being spread in person, on
their DZ sheep. Then their is ole BUZZFINK who just trys to
run his DZ in Calif. and manages to inflame hemoroids coast
to coast. I admire that. You LEG BITCHES. ;-P snuffy
Jeffrey Greer
Well it looks like the majority of the truth has now come out. I wonder how far
this would have gone without my first post. I'm sure the truth would have come
out some time, but I decided to try to accelerate the process while everybody's
eyes were open and this incident was fresh in the minds of all involved. The
more skydivers who see this incident the better because awareness will prevent
further deaths like this.
I guess the information did not come out in two weeks as I said; it took three
weeks, so beat me with a rubber hose. I didn't expect anyone to take my post as
fact, but to investigate it for themselves. The smart skydivers, which seem to
be the majority here, did just that. If someone posts alleged facts you cannot
dismiss them or confirm them until you have investigated them for yourself.
If I had a lot more experience skydiving or knew a lot about aircraft
maintenence I would have investigated the details first-hand and provided the
details in my own words, but since I am not an expert in either area I decided
to rely on others to elaborate the details. I cannot explain the details of
this accident as concisely as the experts. I may not be an expert in aircraft
maintenance or skydiving, but I am very good at analyzing arguments and
separating facts from conjecture. With the detailed information I had at the
end of March I believe I did the right thing starting this thread.
I expected a lot more hate-mail, but I didn't get any hate email - damn it! I
only recall seeing one hateful, personal attack in this thread. I don't
remember his name, but I do remember his dim-witted cliche, something like "Time
heals all wounds and wounds all heels" He also said to me, "Blue Skies, Black
Death", but didn't have the slightest idea what it meant.
I hope after this more people in this sport will not be afraid to speak out when
deaths result from gross negligence at our dropzones or the potential exists. I
also hope I have now established some credibility for myself. I don't make
accusations as I have unless I am 100% sure that they are correct. It is really
shitty when skydivers die due to gross negligence, whether it be aircraft
maintenance anything else. If I die in a skydiving airplane it better be a
well-mainained airplane.
Thanks to everybody who sought the truth for himself,
Blue Skies, Black Death!
(if you think the above phrase is insulting or inappropriate research the
meaning and origin yourself)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jgr...@umr.edu
senior computer science student, University of MO - Rolla
PGP key at: http://www.umr.edu/~jgreer/pgp_key.html
A-27264
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Win 98 Delivery Day Approaches! Microsoft says Win 98
fixes more than 5,000 bugs in Win 95. NOW THAT IS INNOVATION!
-- Take closer look at Microsoft: http://www.vcnet.com/bms
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
In article <6hl8u1$qas$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
bil...@qualcomm.com wrote:
[snip]
> i think self regulation is regulation of skydiving by skydivers. an
> airplane crash can kill you. given that, i think every single person that
> uses the plane has a legitimate interest in its maintenance.
All of the things we, and others, have mentioned though were
basically done in the Kansas case. And actually, as I understand,
the NTSB was also called. And folks still chose to jump there.
So is that self regulation, or is it "seeing what we can get away
with"? I choose to jump on some planes that would probably not
pass their annual. I still see that as self regulation. I am worried that
what you mean by self regulation is you telling me what kind of planes
I can jump out of.
Kevin O'Connell
Robert Romey
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote in message
<6hnb1a$p8i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> All of the things we, and others, have mentioned though were
>basically done in the Kansas case. And actually, as I understand,
>the NTSB was also called. And folks still chose to jump there.
>So is that self regulation, or is it "seeing what we can get away
>with"? I choose to jump on some planes that would probably not
>pass their annual. I still see that as self regulation. I am worried that
>what you mean by self regulation is you telling me what kind of planes
>I can jump out of.
First of all in the Kansas City case, there were people who decided that
the planes were dangerous. Those people went to other places. Some of them
began letter campaigns, and other attempts to make people notice the
Independence DZ. People turned a deaf ear and did not listen. They did not
want to believe what they are hearing. So it took six lives for them to perk
their ears up and start looking around.
Personally I don't care if you get on a shitty airplane every jump you
make, but don't you dare take a jumper that has very little experience,
don't you dare take a tandem passenger that has never jumped before, don't
you dare take a observer who doesn't know any better.
Actually now that I think about it, I do care if you get on a shitty
airplane, and crash and burn in a huge ball of flames, because how many more
of these crashes is it going to take before the government says "hey these
guys need some more rules."
If you want this sport to continue the way it is, people need to quit
playing Russian Roulette with their lives and the unsuspecting people on the
plane with them. Don't endanger my hobby from your own disregard for safety.
Rob Romey
TooyT
>From: jgr...@umr.edu (Jeffrey Greer) Wrote:
>I expected a lot more hate-mail, but I didn't get any hate email - damn it!
Let me help you out kid. You a LEG BITCH, but we luvs you
anyway, you probably wear pink and manure colors like a sheep
and drink coke insteada beer, you probably got a firin car with
a spoiler on the Trunk. Bitch! ;-P snuffy
TooyT
>From: ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
>Date: Thu, Apr 23, 1998 09:09 EDT Wrote:
> i think self regulation is regulation of skydiving by skydivers. an
***************************************************
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Self regulation is being able to take a daily Shit,
YOU LEG BITCH! ;-* snuffy
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
In article <6hndo9$nd2$1...@gte2.gte.net>,
"Robert Romey" <Robert...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>
> ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote in message
> <6hnb1a$p8i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >
> > All of the things we, and others, have mentioned though were
> >basically done in the Kansas case. And actually, as I understand,
> >the NTSB was also called. And folks still chose to jump there.
> >So is that self regulation, or is it "seeing what we can get away
> >with"? I choose to jump on some planes that would probably not
> >pass their annual. I still see that as self regulation. I am worried that
> >what you mean by self regulation is you telling me what kind of planes
> >I can jump out of.
>
> First of all in the Kansas City case, there were people who decided that
> the planes were dangerous. Those people went to other places. Some of them
> began letter campaigns, and other attempts to make people notice the
> Independence DZ. People turned a deaf ear and did not listen.
Hmmm. How about a slightly less judgemental term. They choose
a different risk to benefit ratio than you did.
> They did not
> want to believe what they are hearing. So it took six lives for them to perk
> their ears up and start looking around.
So everyone has changed their mind? Or some people have changed
their risk/benefit ratio assessment?
> Personally I don't care if you get on a shitty airplane every jump you
> make, but don't you dare take a jumper that has very little experience,
> don't you dare take a tandem passenger that has never jumped before, don't
> you dare take a observer who doesn't know any better.
I understand you sentiment. But when you decide to get involved
in bringing unexperienced people into this sport, you have already decided
to take resonsibility for making safety decisions for them. In a self
regulating environment, this decision too would be self regulated.
> Actually now that I think about it, I do care if you get on a shitty
> airplane, and crash and burn in a huge ball of flames, because how many more
> of these crashes is it going to take before the government says "hey these
> guys need some more rules."
Actually, jump planes are ALREADY covered by alot of rules.
It isn't crashes that increases rules (just look at homebuilts and
ultralights). It is money. The larger the sport gets, the more
interested the FAA will become.
> If you want this sport to continue the way it is, people need to quit
> playing Russian Roulette with their lives and the unsuspecting people on the
> plane with them.
Well, I understand your point, but really, high standards for
aircraft maintanance is a relatively new phenomenon in the sport and
so "continuing the way it is" is sort of a relative term. The sport
existed for a long time with less than spotless maintanance. Its
advancement into "mainstream" may be affected but...
> Don't endanger my hobby from your own disregard for safety.
[snip]
You got a deed for that hobby? I'm not sure how you got to
own it. I didn't realize it was for sale. I've been in since '81
(that's 1981 for those who aren't 2000 compliant) and until
recently, I thought of myself as a newcomer, not an owner. But if
the sport is up for sale, I might be interested. See, there is this
guy Buzz....
TooyT
>From: ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
>Date: Thu, Apr 23, 1998 14:50 EDT
>Message-id: <6hnv09$nec$1@nnr Wrote:
><Robert...@gte.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote in message
>> <6hnb1a$p8i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> >
>> > All of the things we, and others, have mentioned though were
>> >basically done in the Kansas case. And actually, as I understand,
>> >the NTSB was also called. And folks still chose to jump there.
>> >So is that self regulation, or is it "seeing what we can get away
>> >with"? I choose to jump on some planes that would probably not
>> >pass their annual. I still see that as self regulation. I am worried
>that
>> >what you mean by self regulation is you telling me what kind of planes
>> >I can jump out of.
>>
>> First of all in the Kansas City case, there were people who decided
>that
>> the planes were dangerous. Those people went to other places. Some of them
>> began letter campaigns, and other attempts to make people notice the
>> Independence DZ. People turned a deaf ear and did not listen.
>
> Hmmm. How about a slightly less judgemental term. They choose
>a different risk to benefit ratio than you did.
***************************************************
I got a Snuffy Observation: Skydiving frindship much like Leeming frindship can
lead to death. Blues Skys White Lite Death
Yup yup ;-* guess who
bil...@qualcomm.com
In article <6hnb1a$p8i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
> > i think self regulation is regulation of skydiving by skydivers. an
> > airplane crash can kill you. given that, i think every single person that
> > uses the plane has a legitimate interest in its maintenance.
> [snip]
>
> All of the things we, and others, have mentioned though were
> basically done in the Kansas case. And actually, as I understand,
> the NTSB was also called. And folks still chose to jump there.
again, i know little about the KC crash. i certainly don't know enough
to draw any conclusions from it.
> So is that self regulation, or is it "seeing what we can get away
> with"? I choose to jump on some planes that would probably not
> pass their annual. I still see that as self regulation. I am worried that
> what you mean by self regulation is you telling me what kind of planes
> I can jump out of.
well, not really. if you buy a plane, have your buddy fly it, and jump
from it, that's fine. you can maintain it however you want. you might get
busted for flying a plane that doesn't pass inspection, or you might get
killed (or watch your friend die) when the plane throws a crankshaft, but
that's up to you. but when you are providing a plane for other people to jump
from - taking their money, at least in part to pay for oil, fuel and
maintenance for the aircraft - you have a responsibility to maintain it. and
when you provide an aircraft for people who don't know any better (students,
low timers, observers etc) you have an even greater responsibility, because
those people are unable to make value judgements on what's safe and what's
not.
-bill von
ps. congratulations! two posts in a row with no mention of AAD's!
Robert Romey
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote in message
<6hnv09$nec$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> First of all in the Kansas City case, there were people who decided
that
>> the planes were dangerous. Those people went to other places. Some of
them
>> began letter campaigns, and other attempts to make people notice the
>> Independence DZ. People turned a deaf ear and did not listen.
>
> Hmmm. How about a slightly less judgemental term. They choose
>a different risk to benefit ratio than you did.
No they were foolish, and in this case fortune did not favor the foolish.
>
>> They did not
>> want to believe what they are hearing. So it took six lives for them to
perk
>> their ears up and start looking around.
>
> So everyone has changed their mind? Or some people have changed
>their risk/benefit ratio assessment?
Yes, a great number have changed their minds, in fact from the rumor mill
though UNCONFIRMED, this DZ will no longer be flying loads. (anyone who can
clear up this matter would be appreciatted)
>
>> Personally I don't care if you get on a shitty airplane every jump
you
>> make, but don't you dare take a jumper that has very little experience,
>> don't you dare take a tandem passenger that has never jumped before,
don't
>> you dare take a observer who doesn't know any better.
>
> I understand you sentiment. But when you decide to get involved
>in bringing unexperienced people into this sport, you have already decided
>to take resonsibility for making safety decisions for them. In a self
>regulating environment, this decision too would be self regulated.
I supose that gives you the authority to assume the position of God almighty
himself and decide what is right and wrong. And in your mind sending someone
up in a plane that is not up to par or out of annual is okay. I am also sure
that the jumpers on board the Independence plane thought the same thing tell
they were running around on fire waiting to die thinking, boy I wish I had
that decision to make over again. (yes according to the actual coroners
reports two did not die on impact. They managed to run a short distance from
the plane before collapsing to the ground on fire.)
>> Actually now that I think about it, I do care if you get on a shitty
>> airplane, and crash and burn in a huge ball of flames, because how many
more
>> of these crashes is it going to take before the government says "hey
these
>> guys need some more rules."
>
> Actually, jump planes are ALREADY covered by alot of rules.
>It isn't crashes that increases rules (just look at homebuilts and
>ultralights). It is money. The larger the sport gets, the more
>interested the FAA will become.
Yes they are covered by alot of rules, perhaps we should do a better job of
enforcing them. Why don't you call the FAA out to inspect your planes, and
see what they find. Then post that list up around your DZ. See just how many
people stick aound.
>> If you want this sport to continue the way it is, people need to
quit
>> playing Russian Roulette with their lives and the unsuspecting people on
the
>> plane with them.
>
> Well, I understand your point, but really, high standards for
>aircraft maintanance is a relatively new phenomenon in the sport and
>so "continuing the way it is" is sort of a relative term. The sport
>existed for a long time with less than spotless maintanance. Its
>advancement into "mainstream" may be affected but...
In terms of time yes it is a new phenomenon, but for that matter so are
square parachutes. You don't see too many people running out to buy rounds
do you? We must progress with the times. There is nothing to be afraid of.
If the sport is in need of better aircraft then give it better aircraft.
>
>> Don't endanger my hobby from your own disregard for safety.
>[snip]
>
> You got a deed for that hobby? I'm not sure how you got to
>own it. I didn't realize it was for sale. I've been in since '81
>(that's 1981 for those who aren't 2000 compliant) and until
>recently, I thought of myself as a newcomer, not an owner. But if
>the sport is up for sale, I might be interested. See, there is this
>guy Buzz....
> Kevin O'Connell
DAMN FUCKING STAIGHT I HAVE A DEED ON MY HOBBY, ALONG WITH OVER THIRTY
THOUSAND OTHER PEOPLE. THIS SPORT BELONGS TO ALL OF US, AND DON'T EVER
QUESTION THAT FACT. EVERY PLANE CRASH, EVERY DEATH, EVERY TV COMMERCIAL,
EVERY NEWSCAST, AFFECTS MY (OUR) SPORT, SO IF YOU GO BURN A PLANE INTO THE
GROUND WITH YOU ON BOARD IT WILL INTURN REFLECT ON US ALL. AND I DON'T WANT
TO HAVE TO SUFFER FROM A CONSEQUENCE THAT YOU BROUGHT ABOUT FROM YOUR OWN
STUBBORNESS.
Rob Romey