1. It seems that pilots of TURBINE powered para dropping a/c do NOT normally wear personal parachutes. Apart from the obvious size/weight/power differences between, say, a piston-powered Cessna and a type such as the subject of this accident, why not? (It also seems that most airworthiness authorities do not mandate but "recommend" that pilots wear parachutes, correct)?
The relevant regulations are EASA rules, as Switzerland is a non-EU EASA member state. Para dropping falls under Part-SPO (pun intended) and you can find the entire PDF of this document here:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/docume...-eu-no-9652012
My quick browse through this document does NOT mention parachutes as being mandatory or recommended. It does mention this:
SPO.OP.230 Standard operating procedures Regulation (EU) No 379/2014
(a) Before commencing a specialised operation, the operator shall conduct a risk assessment,
assessing the complexity of the activity to determine the hazards and associated risks inherent
in the operation and establish mitigating measures.
(b) Based on the risk assessment, the operator shall establish standard operating procedures (SOP)
appropriate to the specialised activity and aircraft used taking account of the requirements of
subpart E. The SOP shall be part of the operations manual or a separate document. SOP shall be
regularly reviewed and updated, as appropriate.
(c) The operator shall ensure that specialised operations are performed in accordance with SOP.
These SOPs must be written by the operator and approved by the regulator and it is in this document that you can set out the result of a risk assessment, ie. the fact that you want the pilot to wear a parachute. There may well be guidelines on this but I have not found them in this document. My guess is that accepted practices in the industry have been incorporated into these SOPs but there is no direct regulatory reason to state that a parachute must be worn.