Action for USPA Members !

11 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Interesting they did a deep dive into the logbooks focusing on the engine mod's. Maybe it's just a hard on for King Air's after Hawaii. ...

One of the problems that contributed to the King Air crash in Hawaii was a poorly-done repair that left one wing at a slightly different angle of incidence than the other. Add that on top of sloppy pilot technique (zoom climb immediately after take-off) and there is little wonder that it stalled.

All these King Air accidents have forced Beechcraft to state that King Airs jump-planes cannot be operated "on condition" since jump operations are so radically different than the original mission profile. The original mission profile intended for King Airs to fly two or three flight per DAY, versus the 2 or 3 flights per hour of jump planes.

One of the reasons that I keep repeating this factoid is that one of the reasons why I was injured in a King Air crash was because one of those engines was something like 1500 hours past TBO. That combined with a smudged logbook entry about inspecting a fuel pump ... then the fuel pump failed ... add in some pilot error ...

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Interesting they did a deep dive into the logbooks focusing on the engine mod's. Maybe it's just a hard on for King Air's after Hawaii. I haven't done it in a while but it used to be that you could pull the entire 337 package out of Oklahoma City for 50 bucks. There may even be a local title company that will cross the street and get it for a fee instead of waiting two weeks.

Yes, that's what Mr FAA said. Somehow, OKC didn't have copies of what the FAA approvals that the local A&P did, and that's where the confusion arose since those documents weren't on hand. But all involved agreed that the paperwork did exist, which I assume is why the entire operation wasn't grounded. We were relegated to the mighty Cessna fleet for the rest of the weekend. I also assume that once the A&P came in on Monday they were able to clear it up. 

52 minutes ago, Deisel said:

Yes, that's what Mr FAA said. Somehow, OKC didn't have copies of what the FAA approvals that the local A&P did, and that's where the confusion arose since those documents weren't on hand. But all involved agreed that the paperwork did exist, which I assume is why the entire operation wasn't grounded. We were relegated to the mighty Cessna fleet for the rest of the weekend. I also assume that once the A&P came in on Monday they were able to clear it up. 

They're supposed to be sent in, obviously, hence the kerfuffle. 

Sharing a Facebook post from Jim Crouch. I find myself agreeing with him and Bertorelli. 

"Another great article and viewpoint from Paul Bertorelli. The DZO wears a lot of hats. But, operating the aircraft is probably the most critical aspect. If you’re a DZO and don’t know airplane maintenance, pilot training needs and aviation regulations, it’s important to understand. Even with solid maintenance, there is still going to be problems with the aircraft. That’s where the strong pilot training and supervision comes into play. But, moving skydiving aircraft into Part 135 would do little to improve the safety of skydiving aircraft, yet it would probably put the entire industry out of business due to the drastic cost increases. Following the existing rules and regulations would have prevented nearly every airplane accident in the skydiving industry."

https://www.avweb.com/insider/less-regulation-more-personal-responsibility/?fbclid=IwAR2sPtM_TunCRJa_HW1Pvp-_QoigGHsBQEW589Xu1aLBKsuVsKaFzWlwANI

2 hours ago, Deisel said:

 yet it would probably put the entire industry out of business due to the drastic cost increases.

Does anyone really believe this?

On 9/12/2023 at 9:27 AM, gowlerk said:

Does anyone really believe this?

Apparently, yes. By my count so far - USPA, AOPA, and several DZOs that I've spoken with about it do not believe this will do anything to improve safety. And based on what I've seen, the FAA isn't convinced either. And costs will definitely increase, which I can easily see putting small 182 DZs out of business. Many of them are operating on pretty thin margins.

On 9/12/2023 at 6:27 AM, gowlerk said:

Does anyone really believe this?

Ken, something that young people, like yourself, don't fully grasp is that as one gets older they start getting their druthers and many of our DZO senior citizens would druther not be fucked around by the feds over useless paperwork irrespective of the cost. I suspect many would simply druther to take their marbles and go fishing.

10 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Ken, something that young people, like yourself, don't fully grasp is that as one gets older they start getting their druthers and many of our DZO senior citizens would druther not be fucked around by the feds over useless paperwork irrespective of the cost. I suspect many would simply druther to take their marbles and go fishing.

Yes, that's true. Some will not want to be bothered. That is pretty much what happened here in the 90s when the CARs came out and included skydive operators. I can't be bothered is not the same as cost of compliance. Some DZOs will close. No markets will be abandoned. If fishing is all you have left I hope you enjoy your dotage.

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Yes, that's true. Some will not want to be bothered. That is pretty much what happened here in the 90s when the CARs came out and included skydive operators. I can't be bothered is not the same as cost of compliance. Some DZOs will close. No markets will be abandoned. If fishing is all you have left I hope you enjoy your dotage.

Not me, man, I'm good for as long as I want but there will be many who will just say screw it.

On 8/30/2023 at 1:42 PM, riggerrob said:

One of the problems that contributed to the King Air crash in Hawaii was a poorly-done repair that left one wing at a slightly different angle of incidence than the other. Add that on top of sloppy pilot technique (zoom climb immediately after take-off) and there is little wonder that it stalled.

All these King Air accidents have forced Beechcraft to state that King Airs jump-planes cannot be operated "on condition" since jump operations are so radically different than the original mission profile. The original mission profile intended for King Airs to fly two or three flight per DAY, versus the 2 or 3 flights per hour of jump planes.

One of the reasons that I keep repeating this factoid is that one of the reasons why I was injured in a King Air crash was because one of those engines was something like 1500 hours past TBO. That combined with a smudged logbook entry about inspecting a fuel pump ... then the fuel pump failed ... add in some pilot error ...

Rob,

I've bought aircraft out of 135 operations that were rigged for shit: flaps that didn't retract evenly, elevator trim out of spec, ailerons uneven etc. All of those things could mimic a wing that wasn't rigged exactly as the other for angle of incidence. That, and I'd wager a meaningful difference would be visible to the eye looking head on. A failed fuel pump due to a missing required inspection is a problem but I can tell you that after 34 years in this game and a fair amount of experience running a crap load of different aircraft in skydiving and all sizes of PT6 engines in the engine leasing game that accessories can fail early in their life, too. I think most operators with wide ranging experience would agree that a  smooth runner with 500-1500 hours on it is the one you don't think about. Also, my business was leasing engines to operators with FAA approved 8000 TBO's. I had access to the tear down floor at Standard Aero, Winnipeg. Trust me, a well maintained PT6 engine that was serviced by Pratt or a DDOF could look pretty good on the carts after tear down. And, I never saw a trend towards excessive early accessory replacement in the log books.  No, the Hawaii accident was caused by a jerk pilot and lack of management supervision. 

That said, this is aviation, our Gods are weak, and too often unavailable so I've already notified my shop that we're replacing accessories this winter.

3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Rob,

... most operators with wide ranging experience would agree that a  smooth runner with 500-1500 hours on it is the one you don't think about. Also, my business was leasing engines to operators with FAA approved 8000 TBO's. ... 

That said, this is aviation, our Gods are weak, and too often unavailable so I've already notified my shop that we're replacing accessories this winter.

Yes, the failed engine had more something like 1500 hours past TBO and the other engine was something like 1800 hours beyond TBO and maintenance logbook entries were "smudged." No body mentioned spectrographic oil analysis or vibration studies. Definitely not a "Tier One" maintenance organization. In 2015 the same organization crashed a Caravan.

2 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

Yes, the failed engine had more something like 1500 hours past TBO and the other engine was something like 1800 hours beyond TBO and maintenance logbook entries were "smudged." No body mentioned spectrographic oil analysis or vibration studies. Definitely not a "Tier One" maintenance organization. In 2015 the same organization crashed a Caravan.

Well and that's the point. Too many Skydive Operators looked at outfits with FAA approved 8000 hour TBO's and say "Why not me, too?". Then go out and buy a 4000 Hour engine that was rebuilt by a grey shop. I've seen it and I've seen those engines on the floor at SA. But they aren't doing the real maintenance, Also, to get that 8000 hour TBO they jump through hoops proving their maintenance. First they apply to send in a 4500 hour engine. If that looks good then a 5000 hour engine and so on until 8000 hours. Nothing is skipped or fudged. Soap samples, vibration analysis, Borescope inspections and HSI's are done on schedule. Done right a post TBO PT6 is a fine engine. But it must be done right. 

Does anyone have any updates on this disastrous bill that USPA needs us to oppose? For that matter are there any updates on whether USPA's policy of encouraging underfunded brand new DZO hopefuls to encroach on established DZ markets is under review? Maybe the USPA "We're not too good at thinking Committee" will issue apologies to the DZ's that couldn't afford to stay alive in a Part 135 environment because USPA assisted so many new DZ's to take market share that might have allowed them to hire Part 135 coordinators. 

Just learned this has been an ongoing thing for quite a while. Found This thread from 2009 that discusses USPA’s response back then.

The upcoming FAA Reauthorization Bill is likely to severely affect skydiving possibly putting some DZ's out of business and raising jump prices of those who are able to continue.  

If you aren't familiar with the bill or haven't taken action, click the link below to contact your representative.  It is quick and easy.

Thanks

https://www.uspa.org/Call-To-Action