In the US the FAR used to be that if it was a jump flite everyone onboard had to wear a legal chute whether jumping or not...

Para drop flight accident
 

In a spin it does

Was not aware of the 10.000ft/min , on this type of aircraft it could means in flight break up no? But do not underestimate the power of Adrenaline , there are lots of gliders pilots that managed to jump out of of impossible situations to tell the tale.

According to ATC from Bern it happened immediately after the drop took place. The pilot did report '...dropping completed' followed by the mayday call seconds later. Looks like the paras are the reason for the breakup.

A loss of control due to jumpers hanging on followed by said jumpers tumbling off the aircraft and separating said tailplane…
Tails don’t just fall off perfectly good aircraft.
Same as running out of elevator as the airplane rapidly pitches up..does lead to a stall.
But none of that could ever matter…as the tail came off.

https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20010429-0

Thanks for posting this megan , this demonstrates pretty well the power of Adrenaline and the benefits to wear a safety parachute .

For what it's worth, ASN now has the following note: "Unconfirmed reports suggest that a parachute got entangled in the tail control surfaces." Unclear when that note was added, and what the source of the report is.

I see a lot of confusion about this on here, so I wanted to clarify things.

Parachutes are only required for pilots in small aircraft like a 182 or 206, with the jump door located next to the pilot. Same goes for Swiss regulations.

They aren’t required in ANY turbine jump plane and I have yet to see any other jump pilot (other than myself) who wears a rig when flying them. This situation here goes to show exactly why I choose to wear a bailout rig. You never know what’s gonna happen.

I have more than 3000 hours flying jumpers, the past 2000 of them being in turbine aircraft, and only made the decision to buy my own bailout rig this past holiday season.

this only applies to 182’s and 206’s really. No turbine aircraft are included, and no jump pilots that I know of wear a parachute when flying them.

Another old one:
I was looking at the DH Rapide that we aquired in the 70s and saw some repaired damage to the horizontal tailplane. Scanning through the log books, it seems that a similar event, but not fatal. Rang a bell, as I had read about it some time before in a newspaper
Used by the army for jumps, a parachute had deployed by the door, caught on the tailplane and left the jumper trailing behind the a/c. The jumpmaster got the remaining jumpers to trail him on a load of joined up static lines back to the casualty, cut him loose and they went down on one. He got a GM for the effort.
To add, the other Rapide that we bought as scrap for engines etc had a jumper from a higher a/c hit from above and wedged in the fuselarge up to his waist. Luckily his chute had not deployed. He was not much injured (thin ply & fabric..) so stayed there until they landed. Again, saw the damage and checked the books.

Bit surprised that the 'catch' loads would pull the tailplane off, but thinking about shock loading, maybe not.

If you stuck or rip of anything of the elevator or its control the plane is usually done. This control is the least one, you can do without.

Thanks...My time was early 80's in BE-18's (SNB5/C45) and 182's at Franklin Co., NC...B

Thanks to all posters above who appear to be "in the know". That "knowledge" is in contrast to my own, which in the whole GA/"little aeroplane"/sky diving context is virtually nil.

Just for info, my own background is as an aircraft engineer, starting out with an RAF apprenticeship in 1961, and apart from military a/c, my whole career has been spent dealing with a/c of 50 pax and more.

I am NOT interested in speculating about this particular accident, but when I meet some of those involved (next week) I would appreciate answers to the following if anyone would be kind enough to share their knowledge. As above, my knowledge of this area of aviation is virtually nil, so "please be gentle"! Thanks in advance:

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)?

2. Not being at all familiar with the type which is the subject of this particular accident, I've studied available photos on line. It seems that the Pilot door/s are of the "gull wing" type (like the famous Mercedes sports car, DeLorean, etc). It LOOKS as if the upper door hinge line is more or less on the a/c fuselage upper (cabin roof) centre line. Further, it looks like the rearmost door/window line is more or less in line with/just behind the pilots shoulder; AND that the aft lower door hinge line is just about in line with the pilots elbow, while the forward lower hinge line is just about at pilot knee level. Assuming such a/c was in a fully-developed stall (or possibly even a spin, upright or inverted), and assuming the door/window is fitted with an emergency release (e.g. withdraw all hinge pins, or similar idea), what are the chances that the door/window would break away from the a/c cleanly? (I am assuming that as part of it's original Type Certificate testing in Australia/elsewhere, this emergency jettison would have been demonstrated in some way)?

3. A "supplementary"/general interest Q if I may:
On my travels around and about I've sometimes seen "in the metal" an a/c called the Fletcher Fu 24. Apart from size and powerplant, to my untutored eye the two a/c look remarkably similar, not "just" in general configuration but also in outline (excluding the large fin strake). Are the two types "related" or is this just coincidence?

TIA

never seen one up close, so no further knowledge, but the pedigree goes as follows:
Fletcher FU-24 (aka PAC Fletcher) ==> PAC Cresco ==> PAC P-750 XSTOL

Pilot wearing of parachute in Oz when dropping parachutists.

Sufficient forces precluding a pilot abandoning the aircraft? I think not.

AES, from your most recent post, it seems like you may believe the Pacific Aerospace 750XL is built in Australia. It is actually built in New Zealand. Wikipedia gives a good overview of the type and its evolution as DIBO already briefly outlined:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_P-750_XSTOL

Wikipedia also has a separate page covering the manufacturer, which I see has changed more recently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Aerospace

The aircraft description on a page from the new company is at:

https://www.aerospace.co.nz/aircraft/750xl

All the best with trying to better understand the circumstances of this sad accident.

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:
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.

@ helispotter: Thank you Sir. Quite correct, I did think the manufacturer is in Oz! I SHOULD Google the a/c!

It seems confirmed now, that one of the parachutists hit the tail of the a/c and took the elevator out.
Rumor has it, that it happened due to an inadvertant opening of the rescue chute.