206 Crash into Dam West of Ipswich [Archive]

TheStormyPetrel

2nd Jan 2006, 01:52

Skydivers involved in fatal plane crash
One person has died and four others are missing, feared dead after a plane crash in south-east Queensland.

The aircraft was carrying a group of parachutists when it came down in a dam soon after take-off this morning, west of Ipswich.

It is believed two people have survived and have been airlifted to hospital.

Peter Theodore from the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service says emergency crews are at the scene.

"We apparently had a seven-seater skydiving aircraft that took off for a parachute jump," he said.

"It didn't gain a lot of altitude on our understanding and crashed into a dam. We have QAS (Queensland Ambulance Service) units on site. We have fire service vehicles on scene, plus our technical rescue vehicles from Brisbane are responding."

Safety Bureau spokesman Alan Stray says few details are known at this stage.

"The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has been advised that there's been an accident involving a Cessna 206 - that's a single engine, around about a six or seven seater aircraft, near Ipswich," he said.

"It's believed to have been on parachute operations. We have no other details at this stage." http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1540617.htm

Up to five people are feared dead after a plane carrying parachutists plunged into a dam shortly after take-off near Ipswich west of Brisbane.

The single-engine Cessna 206, operated by the Brisbane Skydiving Centre, plunged into a dam soon after it took off from Willowbank about 11am (AEDT) today.

At least two of the seven people aboard survived, skydiving centre spokeswoman Angela Garvey said.

"A plane has gone down with seven people on board," she told AAP.
She said the wreckage was submerged in the dam.

"There's two survivors so far," she said.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau spokesman Alan Stray earlier said a team was on its way to the crash scene.

"A Cessna 206 conducting parachuting operations crashed shortly after take-off and it is understood to have crashed into a dam," Mr Stray said.

Queensland Fire and Rescue Service crews are at the scene.

"We apparently had a seven-seater skydiving aircraft that took off for a parachute jump," service spokesman Peter Theodore told the ABC.

"It didn't gain a lot of altitude on our understanding and crashed into a dam.

"We have QAS (Queensland Ambulance Service) units on site. We have fire service vehicles on scene, plus our technical rescue vehicles from Brisbane are responding."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/six-feared-dead-in-light-plane-crash/2006/01/02/1136050376945.html

Going Nowhere

2nd Jan 2006, 03:31

If it's the same machine that was out there a year or so ago, the rego is VH-UYB.

Condolences to the familes of those concerned. Hopefully more survivers can be found.

arelliot

2nd Jan 2006, 03:37

Yes it was the same aircraft - I'm hearing engine failure after take off - clipped a tree and then cartwheeled into a dam

NAMPS

2nd Jan 2006, 03:51

I just saw the scene on TV. Couldn't see the a/c but saw a guy with a chute walking out of the dam.

Condolences to the family and friends of those who didn't make it.

russal coight

2nd Jan 2006, 06:19

just heard a cessna 206 with skydivers onboard just went down west of brisbane,ipswich 7 on board 5 dead

brisbane observer

2nd Jan 2006, 07:52

What a tragedy......

this piece from news.com.au

Five dead in plane crash
From: AAP
January 02, 2006

FIVE people are dead after a plane carrying a group of sky divers plunged into a dam west of Brisbane shortly after take-off today.

Two other people aboard the plane survived - including Brisbane Skydiving Centre owner and founder Brian Scoffell - have been taken to hospital, one found in a paddock with suspected spinal injuries.
Witnesses have told police they saw a plume of smoke coming from the single-engine Cessna 206 before it clipped a tree and crashed into the dam soon after take off about 10.15am (AEST).

Investigators are at the dam, close to an aerodrome at Willowbank near Ipswich west of Brisbane, where the wreckage remains submerged.

Divers are also at the scene, trying to recover four bodies trapped inside. A fifth body was recovered on the bank of the dam.

One of the two survivors, a 27-year-old woman who is believed to have spinal injuries, was found in a paddock close to the dam, with blood streaming down her face.

The other survivor, identified as Mr Scoffell by a friend, suffered a severe arm injury and burns to his upper body.

Both are expected to undergo surgery tonight.

The crash ended what was supposed to have been a day of adrenalin-packed fun for the seven aboard - three skydiving students, three instructors and the pilot.

A Queensland Police spokesman said efforts were focussed on retrieving the four bodies still inside the wreckage.

"Our investigator on site has confirmed there are five dead but four are still in the plane which is submerged upside down," she said.

"We have got our dive squad and our victim identification squad to come and identify the remaining bodies."

The injured man was airlifted to Princess Alexandra Hospital in a satisfactory condition.

The woman was taken to Ipswich Hospital after a friend of the pilot, who was first at the scene, spotted her in a paddock.

Inspector Noel Powers of Ipswich Police said the plane failed to gain altitude after take-off, plunging into the dam about 500m from the Willowbank aerodrome.

He said witnesses saw smoke trailing from the back of the plane before it hit the tree and hurtled into the dam.

"We are talking to witnesses to try and establish the last moments of the flight, but it appears that it definitely had difficulty gaining height," he said.

"The Disaster Victim Identification Squad and the police dive squad are on their way to recover the remaining bodies."

He said a federal aviation safety officer would arrive from Canberra to inspect the site tomorrow, along with Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).

Counsellors are talking to grieving relatives of the deceased who had gathered at the Brisbane Skydiving Centre, which operated the plane.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said it could take weeks to determine the cause of the crash because light aircraft don't carry black box flight recorders.

"I have told the ATSB investigators that if we get any preliminary indications of mechanical problems with the aircraft to let us know to ensure this doesn't happen to another Cessna 206," he said.

"But that's not going to happen quickly. That could be days, perhaps even weeks.

"Typically, these investigations take quite a while to piece together what really happened.

"And typically it is not just one thing that goes wrong. We have no idea of what it might have been at this early stage."

Australian Parachute Federation chief executive Graeme Windsor said the Brisbane Skydiving Centre was a member.

As such, the federation would be taking an interest in the crash.

Brisbane Skydiving Centre began operations in 1982 and is one of south-east Queensland's longest-running parachute training organisations.

The centre has been operating with two planes over the Willowbank drop zone - a Cessna 206 and a Cessna 182.

BBN RADAR

2nd Jan 2006, 08:00

That's correct.

Operating out of Willowbank for Brisbane Skydiver's. The pilot was a good friend of mine and will be missed by all. The pilot and 4 other skydivers were killed. Some newspapers/websites are reporting that the pilot is ok and was taken airlifted to hospital - which is incorrect, as I found out after having my hopes raised momentarily. The owner is also a pilot and was one of the fortunate two who escaped tragedy, but was not the PIC.

see link here:

http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17713049%255E1702,00.html

TheStormyPetrel

2nd Jan 2006, 08:32

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200601/r68605_190273.jpgFatal SE Qld skydiving crash investigated
An investigation is under way into a plane crash in south-east Queensland, in which five people died.

The plane took off from the Brisbane Skydiving Centre near Ipswich, west of Brisbane, just before 11:00am AEST.

Three skydiving students, three instructors and the pilot were on board the Cessna 206.

Witnesses have told police the plane had difficulty gaining height, clipped a gum tree and crashed into a small catchment dam on private property.

Police have confirmed five are dead; five bodies have been recovered from the dam.

A man and a woman survived and were taken to hospital.

Investigation

Peter Gibson from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority says experts were at the site this afternoon to conduct initial investigations.

"They'll be beginning the task of piecing together exactly what went wrong," he said.

"They'll be talking to eyewitnesses, forensically going through the doomed flight so that we can get a very good understanding of why this accident happened and importantly try and prevent the same kind of tragedy in the future."

The two survivors have serious injuries and have been taken to hospitals in Brisbane and Ipswich.

Police Inspector Noel Powers says the plane experienced engine trouble just after take-off.

"There appeared to be a puff of black smoke come out from the engine just after take-off," he said.

"The aircraft was then seen to develop trouble trying to gain some height.

"It has clipped a tree and unfortunately it's gone into the dam."

Safety

Graeme Windsor, from the Australian Parachute Federation (APF), says there is no reason to believe the skydiving centre was in any way deficient.

The APF's safety officers are looking into the crash from a parachuting perspective.

He says he would have known some of those involved.

"I always hate to lose members of our fraternity sky diving, but when they're killed in a plane accident that's really terribly sad," he said.

"And the Parachute Federation exists to administer a sport in the safest possible way it can and we do our best to do that.

"But we always recognise that there are tragic consequences when things do go wrong."

Family and friends wanting information about victims of the plane crash can call 1800 100 188. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1540771.htm

This is so tragic. Condolences to those involved.

Vacant Towers

2nd Jan 2006, 10:16

To all those closely involved in this tragedy, you have my deepest and sincerest condolences.

Historically, PPRuNe has previously become the scene of speculation and "what if " scenarios when some thing such as this happens. Usually with the noblest of intent but sometimes not.

Mr Gibson explains elsewhere that he was probably misquoted by the journo.

Again my condolences to those affected by this tragedy.

VT

The Voice

2nd Jan 2006, 10:34

My condolences to the families for their losses.

So very very sad.

YMEN

2nd Jan 2006, 14:53

Condolences to the families of the victims and the survivors, get well soon!

The GA Parachuting aircraft seem to be having a bad fortnight! Which is unfortunate, due to the amount of public reluctant to get on a GA aircraft at the moment!

Sunfish

2nd Jan 2006, 19:27

Condolences to the families concerned. Mr. Towers, I suggest your comments regarding Mr. Gibson are unwise, considering that they are reported by journalists. I suspect that what Mr. Gibson may have said, or meant, was that if there are any immediate issues found by ATSB regarding C206 aircraft, then CASA will act PDQ.

Capt Fathom

2nd Jan 2006, 20:25

I suspect that what Mr. Gibson may have said, or meant, was that if there are any immediate issues found by ATSB regarding C206 aircraft, then CASA will act PDQ.
And your comments are no better Sunfish! Only Mr. Gibson knows what he meant!

Sid Departure

2nd Jan 2006, 20:40

Is it the "norm", to have 7 people in a 206 when conducting parachute operations? Back when i flew them, they were only certified to carry 6.
A very tragic start to the new year. Condolences to all the families.

THE CONTRACTOR

2nd Jan 2006, 20:48

Condolences to all involved in this tragic start to the year. SID, I suspect there were 3 tandems on board plus the Pilot. I have seen this done in a 182!

Sunfish

2nd Jan 2006, 20:59

Mr. Fathom, I was merely pointing out that the words attributed to Mr. Gibson may in fact be inaccurate. Most of you lambast journalists for the quality of aviation reporting. Why do any of you now believe that what has been attrbuted to Mr. Gibson is correct?d

Islander Jock

3rd Jan 2006, 00:58

G'day SID,

When using the 206 for skydive ops you gain a bit of useable load by removing the 5 extra seats, not much though. You can fit 6 skydivers plus pilot provided all skydivers have an approved single point restraint attached during takeoff, landing and flight below 1,000' AGL. One point we always had to be aware of was that during the takeoff, the rear most jumpers would generally lean fwd as much as possible to keep the C of G balanced. Probably because the rear most jumper during the climb would have actually been sitting in what is the luggage station of the cabin.

A mate of mine actually had an engine failure at height in a 206 many years ago. Skydivers all exited ok and my friend managed to land safely albeit with a windshield covered in oil and a con rod hanging out of the crank case.

I had many jumps and flying hours in a 206 in skydiving ops. My sincere condolonces to all concerned.

flywatcher

3rd Jan 2006, 08:09

That 206 had the Continental engine removed and replaced with a Quote "350 hp Lycoming". I assume Chieftan variant. This opens new cans of worms. Sincere condolences to those involved.

pg casa

3rd Jan 2006, 09:14

People

I haven't ventured on here before, but just to set the record straight the quote attributed to me re the Ipswich accident and CASA's role was a bit screwy. It may have been the journos fault, it may have been me not making myself clear.

I did not intend to say that CASA had told the ATSB anything. As one person has said that would be improper. But I was trying to say that CASA will act appropriately on any advice that the ATSB might have about any safety issues. We do take the accident investigation process very seriously. Let's hope there are some clear findings that we can use to improve safety in the future.

From all of us at CASA, our sincere condolences and sympathy to the friends, families and victims of this accident.

pg

Islander Jock

3rd Jan 2006, 09:40

PG,

Well done for coming on here to clarify.

Welcome to the Bear Pit!

puff

3rd Jan 2006, 09:43

From my experiences CASA have never seemed very interested in acting in relation to the parachute operations in aviation. There are continued fairly obvious breaking of the rules generally in all forms of parachuting that CASA never seem to act on mainly because it's not a 'commercial operation'.

The fact that the 'passengers' onboard are fare paying(they just don't land on the aircraft) the fact that parachute operators are not under the same rules as charter still suprises me to this day. Perhaps if they were some of the dodgy operators would be sorted out though CASA audits that any other commercial operator has to undergo. The whole industry seems to 'self regulate'

Often heard it on the voice of ATC astounded that the parachute a/c has found a 'hole' in an area where everyone else has been in solid IMC.

Very sad loss of life none the less, however after seeing some of these operations it comes as no shock.

7gcbc

3rd Jan 2006, 12:21

picked up a copy of the "telegraph" today and on page 2 there was a photo of the strip and the dam in the distance, (not knowing the area, and assuming that the telegraph has not 'doctored' the photo -age unknown), it seems very unlucky that they could have not gone on the road ahead or at least to one side, if as the report suggests they clipped a wing, then I have only sympathy and condolences to the pilot and deceased as he was probably trying for the road or flats beyond the dam (which has trees.)

Irrespective of the cause of EFATO, I think he was very very unlucky on the forced landing not coming off. (that is if the photo is accurate).

anyone know area met for the region at the time, was it gusty/blowy ?

Poor blokes, prayers from me.

one25six

4th Jan 2006, 00:18

350hp Mod: http://www.aeromods.com/
The Super Turbo 350hp Cessna U206, VH-UYB, has a slightly larger fuselage and can take up to six jumpers. It's the fastest C206 in Australia, taking only 14 minutes to 14,000ft thanks to the Aeromods engine.

http://www.brisbaneskydive.com.au/images/uyb.jpg

Freedom3

4th Jan 2006, 05:03

I don't know about the wind but the temperature was close to 40C. Gossip has it that the aircraft appeared to stall trying to clear a tree, hit the tree top then crashed into the dam. Terribly bad luck to crash into the only water within hundreds of square Kms.

That engine is prone to vapour lock when very hot and was reported to be making "funny noises" on the takeoff roll. Is it possible that the pilot forgot the electric fuel pump on T/O and turned it on when just airbourne causing momentary flooding - hence the reported puffs of black smoke?

Tragic accident.

rearwhelsteer888

5th Jan 2006, 06:12

To all involved an awful event.
When I heard of this accident I heard the head of the Parachute federation reiterate to the media that this was not an parachuting accident but a AVIATION accident.
This is absolutly typical of the US and THEM metality that APF have towards the GA industry.Ridiculous considering that we are elementry to there sport.
These w@#kers want it all!
They dont want to pay their pilots.
They dont want to have it a commercial operation.
They dont want to have to comply with the saftey measures that would be in place if they were a commercial.
If it was a commercial op they would be subject to CASA ramp checks etc...
I know I did it for 500 hrs about and yes I was pushed to fly in non IFR conditions.
Yes I was pushed to fly overwieght.
Yes I was treated like Sh#t
Yes I was paid jack.
Yes they jumped through cloud
Yes they insisted that I fly with the MR due with work
Not to mention the increased maintenence they would need to do.
If anything jump A/C need more regular checks considering the way they get belted.
often ten loads a day and flown by good young pilots but probably not with the same engine managment vigilence that maybe a 1000hr+ pilot might.
So on and so on .
Theres no doubt that there are operators out there that play the game but it aint due to the APF.
Its about bloody time CASA got serious with them and regulated the industry and made them responsible for there own action.
Pls somone take note. I'm sure most jump drivers would agree.It need a lot better system than whats in place.
Finally, I'm not for a second suggesting this was at all the case with this particular outfit.
I'ts simply a general observation from what I've seen.
I'm much further down the aviation track now and it still sh#ts me.:yuk:

RWS888:E

dude65

5th Jan 2006, 08:15

Lots of buck passing on tonights 6 o'clock news. The APF saying the aircraft are under CASA's regulation ,and CASA saying that it's not a commercial operation and therefore not as heavily scrutinised.

Not really surprising that it took the deaths of 5 people to get these 2 groups to start throwing mud at each other.

THE CONTRACTOR

5th Jan 2006, 08:52

It is about time that Para Ops are conducted with at very minimum a Senior Pilot, Op's Manual and to the Bloody regulations. ie VFR or IFR, weight and balance and that sort of thing.

seat1A

5th Jan 2006, 09:00

Well said Rearwhelsteer888....couldn't agree more.

Sunfish

5th Jan 2006, 09:36

Flew to Barwon Heads today. The operator said that the numbrer of visitors was increasing now that a certain para operator was gone.

Mr. Hat

5th Jan 2006, 10:31

hmm operators i came across were rude morons that bullied inexperienced people for a living

Islander Jock

5th Jan 2006, 10:46

Rearwelsteer888,
Mate, you nailed it pretty well and echoed a similar rant I had here on PPRUNE a few years back.

I gave up jump flying after the owner of the aircraft allowed the DZ operator to remove a part of the fuel system, take it to a LAME somewhere for repair then re-fit it himself. All I wanted was for a LAME to come down, inspect and sign off the work but that was all too damn hard.

Scanrate

5th Jan 2006, 11:45

RWS888,Seat 1A, Islander Jock,
I also started my flying in the skydiving industry a few years back and can certainly relate to all that RWS888 has put forward. The one thing to this day that still grates to the bone with it all, is why in the hell is it still classed as a private operation. It's about time CASA stood up to the plate and seriously looked at shaking up the skydiving industry instead of treating it as the ugly cousin to the rest of the aviation industry. CASA you are meant to be the safety authority, well why can't you do it across the board over the whole industry and end this self regulatory nonsense, what does the APF hold over you!
I know this has gone off the original topic, but I know it can be a rewarding and enjoyable stepping stone for our upcoming brothers and sisters in this industry, and I just want to see the best safety practices put in place so the up and comers can enjoy ther transition from fresh CPL to first job as they progress and learn some valuable flying experience to take to the next rung on the ladder. Come on CASA, lets stop the Rot!!
My condolences to all concerned, and their familes and friends.

Ron & Edna Johns

5th Jan 2006, 22:10

Many professional pilots like myself and others here got a big leg-up from doing meat-bombing. I cannot agree more with the recent posts here. Having flown a medium sized twin-turbine on such operations with 25+ paying customers onboard, it always astounded me that it was considered a PRIVATE operation and all I needed was a PPL (although I did have a CPL). The amount of revenue taken EACH flight was in the $1000's. Take a look at some of the largest skydiving operations around the country - Twin Otters, Skyvans, etc, etc... all being operated "PRIVATELY"? Incredible.

This accident may not necessarily have been avoided if skydive flying was regulated by CASA. Let's not confuse that issue. But skydiving has been much much more than simply club-type flying for many years now. Unlike gliding, for example, the unsuspecting public rocks up and forks out thousands of bucks every weekend. Surely that suggests regulation and oversight somewhat akin to commercial joy-flights.

Perhaps we will see constructive change from this sad event.

Vacant Towers

5th Jan 2006, 22:44

It is not too hard to see why the regulator prefers PJE to remain in PVT op's. There is more likely to be an insurance driven safety outcome than a regulatory one. Of course every body knows you can regulate safety by passing a few more laws, adding punitive measures and calling it 'strict liability, can't you.

Then again one could always register your LET410 in that paragon of regulatory oversight, Sierra Leone. I can just imagine the standard of training, licensing & airworthiness oversight that entails.

VT

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

6th Jan 2006, 05:54

Condolences to the Families.

RWS and company, it is very interesting to read how badly you were treated etc etc, but simply put that is your own stupid fault.

It is because of pilot such as yourself ( from your having actually previously accepted these conditions ), that accept such positions under their offered conditions, then bitch and moan about it years later, this is the reason our industry is in the terrible situation regarding pilot conditions.

But of course, it was different for you as you needed, a first job or multi time, now that you have what ever it was you wanted you for some reason feel you have the right judge others.:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

Quote: "Yes they insisted that I fly with the MR due with work", What, did they hold a gun at your head ?

Again "Yes I was pushed to fly overwieght", you know your obligations regarding the law, Why did YOU break the law ?.

This mentaility comes up over and over, " I did what i did to get ahead, screw you guys".

You are not my equal.

Contract Con

6th Jan 2006, 07:06

Gday all,

A sad day to be sure.
I was pleased to here that at least one person I knew on board survived.

I have stayed clear of this thread, until now, to avoid having a rant.

LHRT, I am pleased you have injected some truth and realism into the thread in regard to the last few posts.

Read again LHRT's post if you are about to cr@p on about your poor underpriveleged skydiving flying days!

The choices we make in life are only our own.

Cheers,

Con:ok:

Ex Diver Driver( and loved avery minute of it!!):}

lazyeye

6th Jan 2006, 07:26

Lefthanded Rock Thrower....Well said!
Many years ago I flew for a very professional skydiving outfit based out of YCDR. I was never pushed to do anything outside of the law and never saw the operator risking the lives of his staff or customers. Yes the money wasn't great but the flying sure was, 14000 over Noosa on a clear September day was just fantastic. Thanks to that experience and many more hours gained since, I have finally made it into a jet.
I am sure there are operators that push there pilots beyond the limits, in fact I have worked fo a few! This is easy to do to someone with little experience and often maturity and who is desperate to hold onto that hard to get job.There are many respectable companies as well... What young pilots have to understand is that they are responsibile for the flight and if they have any doubt that the flight can not be conducted safely then the only option is to say no. Will this get them sacked? Possibily, but at least you can hold your head up high knowing you have not risked the lives of your collegues. Should you then report the operator? Yes, if this is the last option or the operator is just plain dangerous.
As for CASA....So many pilots are very quick at pointing the finger in their direction. I would like to say that there are alot of great blokes in CASA with invaluable experience. I have had the opportunity to absorb some of their knowledge & beleive that I am a much safer pilot for it. Accidents happen whether it is human error, mechanical or just plain old enviromental factors. I have seen very professional outfits that have operated for many years under the watchful eyes of CASA still plow aircraft into the ground, luckily no fatals. Who do we blame for the 72 deaths on the road over the Christmas break?
My condolences to the families who lost their loved ones and best wishes to those who are still to get better. Let's hope that once the investigation is complete we can all learn from this tragic event and reduce the chances of it happening again in the future, that way at least these lives lost were not in vain.

Mr. Hat

6th Jan 2006, 11:41

great concept - BUT - it would help if a regulator step in and regulate occasionally.

JetABro

7th Jan 2006, 07:05

I think that a perfect world would be great where operators don't push their pilots to fly at all costs and where pilots are strong enough to simpily say no.
But sadly this aint the case.
I think that CASA should bring the skydiving industry into line with the rest of them. It certainly wouldn't solve all the problems but it would at least get them pointing the right way so to speak.
The point needs to be made that it's not just the skydiving operators that push their pilots to break the rules, I've had it with charter too (just not as much).

Another point is that during my time with PJE i had more interest from CASA in how we were operating that I did for the same amount of time in charter. Must have been a couple of dodgy boys or girls before me.

At the end of the day it comes down to the pilots.
Just say no:ok:

Time Bomb Ted

7th Jan 2006, 08:57

Isn't it funny how we often hear that CASA should leave us alone. Rack off and leave us to do what we know best. As soon as something goes wrong within a portion of the aviation Industry, we cry that CASA did nothing and they are to blame.

Seems like we can't live with them and we can't live without them.

TBT

McGowan

8th Jan 2006, 21:20

I am a helicopter pilot, commercial, and in the past I have conducted parachute operations in the SY area. Not many, in fact only about six drops. The thing is, for me to do this type of operation I had to be working under the umberella of an AOC, the company operations manual had to have parachute operations included, we had to have everything in place and we could have been subject to audit by CASA. With this in mind, we had to have all of the usual paperwork, passenger manifests, weight and balance etc. all available if required.
I obviously know nothing of how the fixed wing world does its parachute work, only what is read on this forum. A lot of very good points put across but it's not that easy to understand the actual ins and outs of this type of operation.
Maybe CASA should change it to a commercial/air work operation, maybe they should stay away from it. There would be some improvements and some restrictions. Make it safer? Who knows. Make it easier to do? Who knows. As someone has said earlier on this thread, it does come down to the PIC, he/she does have the ability to say "no".
Just a comment from a neutral observer.

rearwhelsteer888

9th Jan 2006, 07:27

They are all fare paying passengers so why shouldn't they be any less entitled to the same level of Saftey surviellence

If you had done the yards in GA you would no doubt see some sense in this line of thought. A lot of others do. If you don't agree I cant imagine you have been living in the real world of aviation,Cirtainly not a side I've seen in my last 16yrs.

Things need to be changed so future Blokes and Birds can work under a fair set of Standards

This could only be a win win for aviation.

although if you were a parachute operator maybe not the best change for you

You need to decide my friend which side of the campfire you are on.
RWS888:E

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

9th Jan 2006, 09:55

RWS, from reading your reply it would appear you are missing many important pieces of information:

CAR206 defines fare paying passengers, assuming you are talking about RPT, fixed terminals, fixed routes, fixed times blah blah blah.

I dropped Parachutes todays, so you are again incorrect.

Parachuting in an extreme sport, chartering an aeroplane to go sight seeing or flying Virgin to Brisbane is not.( http://www.skydivecairns.com.au/aircraft.htm )

I am paid very fairly by this operator, well above the award, why because i have a backbone, i negotiated a fair deal at the beginning ( do not undercut others and will not work for crap wages, which you obviously do and have done ).

Things do need to be changed, the only way this is bound to happen is by people not doing what you appear to have done, fly over weight with defects etc etc for crap money by under cutting other pilots for the work.

You have no right to be spouting wisdom, you are being judged by your actions.

puff

9th Jan 2006, 12:02

Parachuting in an extreme sport, chartering an aeroplane to go sight seeing or flying Virgin to Brisbane is not.
Agreed that parachuting is an extreme sport, however the flight from the ground to 14,000 doesn't need to be. People realise they are taking a risk when skydiving, but they deserve to know the standard of the a/c and operation don't meet 'any' standard.
Even as a pilot who hates the idea of sky diving, most of the sky diving aircraft i've seen I reakon jumping out of it is the smarter thing to do than stay in it.
I know of 3 mates that did dropping, and 2 of them grounded a/c due to serious defects, both were told never to return. The other after working for months asked if it was possible he was finally paid for his work, he was also told not to return.

hair of the dogma

9th Jan 2006, 20:23

I think you are coming out a bit harshly LHRT.
You say you are getting paid above award, what award? It is illegal for you to be paid for skydiving ops.
If skydiving was not a private operation at least the law would not be on the side of unscrupulous operators, and that can only improve pilots chances of being paid well in this industry. By the way I do get paid always have but it is pretty miserable all the same.
Tandem passengers(notice not tandem students) are members of the public who deserve the same safety standards as charter passengers end of story.
Have your tandem passengers ever had it explained to them that their aircraft can be operated in private catergory and as such the only maintenence required by law is an annual inspection, and that 100hourly etc are only reccomended?
Why should dz operators get an easy run by CASA. And can you tell me how the APF can self regulate with so much vested interest, look at the area reps, all dz owners in qld at least. Very clear conflict of interest. Tandem wind limits went from 20 to 25 kts, gear did not improve, skills did not improve but it was a chance for operators to make some money.
Can anyone tell me the last time jump pilots were penalised by CASA or the APF? Pretty common knowledge that we go through clouds, what about woolongong when tandems dropped through cloud and kms out to sea?
I worked at one of the busier dzs in country and never saw a CASA inspector or nor did any of my colleagues? And as for APF audit does a skydiver really know how to read MR and do weight and balances?(skydiving pilots excepted)
LHRT if you are getting paid well hats off to you but if more operators were like your boss perhaps pilots would hang around in industry a bit longer and overall skill levels would improve especially at the smaller non-turbine dzs.
end of rant not really directed at anyone but anyone that is defending system as it stands is more than welcome to answers some or all of my questions.

Diatryma

9th Jan 2006, 20:44

G'Day PPruners,

This is only my first time on, but would it usual for all this discussion regarding regulation to continue on this type of thread? Until more is know about the cause of the accident, is there a more pertinent thread for such discussion?

Regarding the possible causes, would anyone have any knowledge of a NZ accident a few weeks prior to this one which may have been caused my over heated and seized turbo due possible lack of ventilation in conversion?

Sorry to be asking so many questions first time on!!

Condolences to all bereaved and thoughts and prayers with those survivors - get well soon.

Diatryma

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

9th Jan 2006, 21:08

HOD,

Industrial Relations and CASA's definition of an operation are in no way related, so you are incorrect, it is illegal not to be paid. As far as award, in QLD there is not Aviation Award, although i and those other pilots i work with are being paid more than the AFAP award for Single Engine Turbine / Multi Engine Piston ( http://www.wagenet.gov.au/wagenet/Search/view.asp?docid=242918&query=(PILOT)&page=0&quickview=Y ).

How can the industry be self regulating you ask ?, well CASA realised in its Charter many years ago that it is interested mainly in the protection of "Fare Paying Passengers", there are many facets of Sports Aviation ( infact all facets that i can think of ) that are self regulated, incidently who is better to regulate an industry than those who know the most about it ?.

Conflict of interest, ohh my yes, there certainly is, but how is this different to any industry or regulatory body ?, it's not.

Puff,

These aircraft are maintained under the same Maintenance Schedules as Class B Charter Aircraft, the pilots are trained under the Regs and orders as any other pilot. Yes some operators operate aircraft that look like crap, but do you think a LAME is going to sign out an unairworthy aircraft ( risking his/her Licence ) ?. So ultimately you are talking about a neglected paint job and worn interior.

As to the pilots not getting paid their last weeks pay, they have a Seven year statue, ring Industrial Relations, they will get them their final pays.

Some of these dodgy operators push people around because the people let them, end of story.

I fly for the afore mentioned company in my holidays, i do it because i enjoy the flying, if the aeroplane is broken, well it's broken, i don't fly until it is fixed, neither should any other Pilot.

hair of the dogma

9th Jan 2006, 21:40

LHRT i am not talking about dodgy paint, i am talking about a system that has fare paying customers on aircraft that legally only require an annual. Not saying all operators operate private category but a lot do.

How is it different to any regulatory body? Government agencies dont have financial incentive to maintain the status quo. Tandems are big money and these oprerators a given free rein.

I dont buy the fact that tandems are students, they are passengers plain and simple. Student doing a TAFF the only exception. Do passengers you fly get taught anything other than their part in the exit?

I was not trying to link IR and def of private operation, was simply stating it is illegal to get paid for flying priv ops? Not talking about awards or anything else simply that the APF will never agree to commercial ops because board members and area reps have to much to lose.

As you are in the industry I am sure you can tell me the last time you heard of pilot getting penalised. Two tandems were dropped kms out to sea last year and nothing ever happened to operators or pilot. Last week tandem master and passenger drowned in hawaii a few hundred metres off shore. Self regulation when financial interests are involved simply does not work.

You are entitled to your opinion but you are in danger of losing your cred as you defend the indefensible

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

9th Jan 2006, 23:05

HOD,

They are not fare paying passenger, departure point to out the door is not and approved route right ?.

Annual, that is not different to a Class B aircraft in Charter Catergory, 100 hours flight or 12 months, as per section one of the MR, some aircraft, such as C310 ( charter aircraft ) operate on 220 hour maintenance releases.

It is not illegal to earn money from private operations, read CAR 206. many companies use their own aircraft to move people around, private category, does not require an AOC as they are mobilising and demobilising, does not fit into CAR 206, therefore private.

Your unterstanding of what defines a commercial operator requiring an AOC is completely incorrect.

Tell me the last time a pilot operating on an AOC was penalised for a similar mistake ?, all facets of VH registered aviation is controlled by the basic legislation, VMC, basic operational requirments etc etc, maintenance, schedule 5 or similar.

If a parachuting organisation was required to hold an AOC, it would be actually cheaper than being a member of the APF, do the maths on the Temorary Memberships fee's etc etc that are paid by one off tandems and fun jumpers alike. CASA's has handed over the regulation of this industry to those that know the most about it, a group of senior operators.

What will happen sooner or later is one of the parachute organisations that does not recieve preferential treatment will take the APF to court, that will be an interesting turning point.

Quote "Two tandems were dropped kms out to sea last year and nothing ever happened to operators or pilot. Last week tandem master and passenger drowned in hawaii a few hundred metres off shore" end qoute, is that better or worse than say a , metroliner crashing into a hill and killing 16 RPT passengers ?.

Hawaii - why weren't they wearing floatation equipment, we are required too, for dropping at the beach. Your information is somewhat flawed right, does the APF regulate Hawaii ( rule are obviously different right ) ?, your statement seems rather nonsensical in that light doesn't it ?.

Lets wait and see what the ATSB has to say about this horrible event.

rearwhelsteer888

10th Jan 2006, 00:27

LHRT,
Mate in the correct legal term yes your right they are not a fare paying passenger,but for the love of god your splitting hairs.
They utilise an A/C and they pay to do it, Aviation is elementry to the sport.

Mate I got payed but not enough,there isn't even a award,not that it would mean sh#t,hardly anyone abides by it anyway.

Mate I couldn't agree more that we shouldn't undercut each other and have never, It's not what it about. If your getting a great deal fantastic.

This is about CASA and the AFP. Regulation so its then fair for Passengers and Pilots.

Note: Ive never worked for nothing,and never would and get payed well now, thank god. and I'm a long way down the track from meat bombing.

Me thinks your NEW!
RWS888:E

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

10th Jan 2006, 03:10

Quote "Me thinks your NEW!" end quote, well compared to some on PPRUNE, yes, unfortunately only on my second logbook ( and no the dog did not eat my first one, it's proping up the door to my cockys cage.

Do you mean APF as opposed to AFP ?, very different entities.

"Legally Correct" and "Splitting Hairs", well CASA deals on exactly those levels of the Law, they can not go on gut feeling or personal preferences, thats in the realm of Malfeasance.

The reason Parachuting is Private Operations and Parachutist are not Fare paying Passengers, is defined by CASA being legally correct and intouch with present legislation and splitting hairs in the grey areas.

You clearly can not remove your emotive response from the actual legislation ( as it stands ), if you were the fine upstanding citizen you claim to be none of what you claim in your first post would or could have happened to you.

NNB

10th Jan 2006, 03:38

afternnon all
with all the vitriol being thrown around, just pause a bit - take a deeep breath and let the investigators finish their inspection of the engine. when all the details are known, then and only then will this finger pointing game have any relevance.
Until then, condolences to the families of the deceased and I hope that the survivors get well soon
:ok:

Sexual Chocolate

10th Jan 2006, 03:40

Recent goss i've heard from people who sit on the APF Board of Directors indicates that the direction most OZ pruners believe the industry should take is where it's ultimately headed. Though before we get into any of that, it's important for contextual reasons to try and bare in mind how and where this all started.....

In it's modern form, the tandem industry really hasn't been around that long. Let's take a historical look and consider that the first recorded tandem jump was made in 1977. US Patent number 4,746,084 - issued to Strong Enterprises on three major tandem concepts - wasn't even issued until 1987. Let's say it took another 10 years for the tandem jump to make it's way over from the US of A and become established in Australia - making it 1997 (give or take a little) before the industry started to resemble a 'Commercial Operation'. Prior to '97, jumping fell well inside the definition of 'sports aviation' and was accordingly delegated responsibility for self-regulation. (In just the same way that gliding and hang gliding were).

Now think about it - that's around 10 years that PJE has been a Commercial Operation masquerading as a private one. And then ask yourself - does it really surprise me that the current legislation framework is about 10 years behind the industry it's supposed to be regulating?

Hint: Forget the sinister belief that APF are a bunch of cowboys running a dodgy industry in order to feather their own pockets. Stop hating CASA because they do such a bad job at regulating aviation - for there's nothing particularly unusual about CASA's performance here. All regulatory bodies have an equally crappy preformance, if not more so. It's one of the realities of regulating.

Now - back to my first paragraph. Recent goss from the APF BOD indicates that there is growing support for a split in the industry.

Group A - Tandem Operations - to be regulated as a commercial operation
Group B - Sport and Student Operations - to remain as a private operation

Interesting to note that Gliding clubs operate powered aircraft in the private category and use these powered aircraft to take joyriding members of the public to altitude before releasing them and their instructor to make their own independant descent with their own aircraft. If you ask me, it makes perfect sense for the gliding industry to self regulate - though technically, there's very little difference between the gliding and skydiving industries.....

One gets a few more fatalities and a few more headlines because it's infinately more popular and has so many more participants. Which highlights the bottom line here. There's only one real reason that the skydiving industry is the way that it currently is -because it's just so much goddamn fun!

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

10th Jan 2006, 04:35

SC,

I'd be suprised if the APF is terribly supportive of CASA taking the reins back, they'd be out of a job.

Those supporting CASA taking back control are doing so mainly on financial grounds, which with the AAT protection ( administrative process before removal of AOC ) measures in place, nearly makes it a better option.

Again, lets see what the ATSB has to say.

rearwhelsteer888

10th Jan 2006, 10:17

Rock thrower,
Of course it didn't happen to me and couldn't, you'd know wouldn't you? being the Guru of all things parachute.
You will leave meat bombing one day and move on to the real world of aviation and then you will realise that there is a lot more to the industry.
Until you progress from the first stop in your career I suggest you hop off your high horse.
I've had a handful of self appointed experts sit on the other side of a desk and ask me for a job and you guys stick out like dogs balls,needless to say they don't get the call.:{
Thing in this game are going to get a lot harder for you my boy.
See you round I hope.:ok:
RWS888:E

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

10th Jan 2006, 10:34

RWS,

Oh that's gold.

You come to this discussion with nothing, no actual information, no ability to logically present your opinion, no ability to debate, a very poor understanding of the legislative frame work aviation operates within, apparently no ability to reason, just emotional abuse, bordering on school yard antics.

In your opinion a parachutist is a fare paying passengers, and should be protected under the same banner as RPT, well good on you. Shame you have no idea what you are talking about.

Self appointed expert, hardly !!. Just not willing to listen to some hill billy defaming an industry based on little other than one bad experience of their own creation.

Get the call, good on you champ !!.

You said:
Yes I was pushed to fly overwieght.
Yes I was treated like Sh#t
Yes I was paid jack.
Yes they jumped through cloud
Yes they insisted that I fly with the MR due with work

I have done none of the above, how many breaches of the legislation is that you've owned up to ?.

You are not my equal, good bye.

rearwhelsteer888

10th Jan 2006, 22:27

Enough understanding to get out of meat bombing into a long career of professional aviation.
Your right your, not my equal,your still flying a parachute A/C.
I laugh!
****** EditW
RWS888:E
Naughty RWS. Take the rest of the week off. Zero tolerance on name calling matey.
The rest of you take note
Woomera (Eastern States)

Spinnerhead

10th Jan 2006, 22:44

If you all wonder where Tandems (student parachutists) came from, and why they are the way they are, here it is.

1. Up until the mid 1980's all first parachute jumps were static line jumps - very scary and also quite dangerous. This is were a student was expelled out of an aircraft at low level with a static line attached to the aircraft used to deploy their parachute.

Student was all alone once he/she exited the aircraft. Most dangerous method of training due to many students becoming immediatly unstable on exiting the aircraft, with possible fowling of parachute deployment.

Most students never did a second jump.

2. Accelerated Free Fall arrived in the mid 1980's. This is were the student and 2 instructors leave the aircraft together at 10,000 ft or higher. The instructors hang onto the student during the free fall and keep them stable up until the student parachute pulls their own ripcord and deploys the parachute.

This method was a safer but the student was still left to his/her own devices once the parachute was deployed i.e. had to handle failures in a mind set (not much stiuational awareness) which was not conducive to a favourable outcome.

Most students never did a second jump.

3. Tandem Student Parachutist training arrived in the late 1980's, it was to be used for the initial stages of the program above. This is were the student is attached via a harness to the front of the instructor. They exit the aircraft attached and therefore stable. The freefall drill is exactly the same as above including pulling their own ripcord to begin parachute deployment. The instructor is still there if the student screws up or there is an emergency.

This is by far the safest method of initial training for a student parachutist. Until last week only one death in Australia in over 15 years.

4. Today in most cases the deployment of the parachute is carried out by the instructor.

Still to this day ALL Tandem Masters MUST be instructors. ALL so called "passengers" MUST be students.

Probably 99% of students never do a second jump.

The saftey record of this form of training is such that it has become extremely popular method of introducing one self to sky diving. Ask many younger sky divers today how they got into the sport, and they will tell you through doing their first tandem.

So now that the APF has made the initial training so SAFE and therefore popular, it seems everyone wants to regulate it. Hmmm go figure!

Parachuting is about parachutists - NOT pilots.
The owners, and instructors use the same aircraft as the students.

Higher caliber operations require higher caliber pilots who require to be paid properly and are less likely to break rules - JUST LIKE IN G.A.

RWS888

Who the hell are you to judge the aviation experience of another whom you have absolutely no idea about.

bilbert

11th Jan 2006, 09:22

A Tandem Skydive is not to be missed during a visit to the Whitsundays. With such stunning views it has to be one of the best loactions in the world to experience the most exhilerating feelings of freefall.

Our very experienced crew are here to make sure you have a enjoyable skydive. Most of our crew are current or ex-world and Australian Champions some of them having gold medals.

They all have between 5,000 and 9,000 skydives each and have been part of the sport for more than 20 years.

Tandem Skydive operates from a Cessna 182, which is a small aircraft but it also creates the small family feeling. Your skydive is personal with only two passengers per load, so there is no feeling of being ruched as the plane is not crowded.

We also provide the opportunity to capture the whole experience on Video, film or both.

This is an extra cost but an absolute must because viewing it afterwards is just like doing it again!

So where does it say your a student?
Come off it! This is a commercial profitmaking venture. Nothing less.
Anyway by the time the ATSB and the Coroner have finished, you will be regulated.