safety question

[scrambler]

and so where are you going to fly with 1.5 hours fuel. If you want an hours reserve??? Please we all fly them with 4 hours of fuel and more...

45 min fixed reserve plus 10% var recommended in the CAAP's for charter
I worked with an op that had legally no variable reserve. Full flight 3 sectors 0.5 hrs. Why put on 4 hrs??

[Tibbsy]

dodgy....

G'day people... have a burning question... how often do GA operators bend the rules? eg max weights, duty time. what can a pilot do to keep themselves safe and keep their job at the same time?

Well, if GA operators include the majority of skydiving operators, then the rules are bent to breaking point most days.
What you can do to stay safe is to avoid them unless you can be assured that they are a reputable operator. Check with other local operators to find out.

[j3pipercub]

Hey Pyote,

Did your clunker of a BN2 have the inboard wingtip droop mod on it? Just a question tho, why would you be that stupid to overload a BN2 by that much (I'm guessing in the region of 20% or 600kgs with your 4 hrs of fuel on board)? Was your life really worth the twin hours?

j3

[j3pipercub]

Skydiving Ops

Hey Tibbsy,
Well, if GA operators include the majority of skydiving operators, then the rules are bent to breaking point most days.
So you must be one hell of a drop zone tart if you can equivocally say that the majority of skydiving ops are dodgy, big call mate. I agree that there are rogue operators in the industry but the broad brush statement doesn't help anyone.

As mentioned earlier by other posters, if you keep your integrity you either stay on or get fired. If you get fired ah well it was for the best. I used to be a jump trucker and was pressured immensely to do formation flying without a rating. I refused, even when the threat of the sack was looming. As a result, stayed with the operator for a further 5 months and then left of my own accord never having done formation.
j3

[PA39]

It depends on how good the Chief Pilot is. If he runs the ship in accordance with the regs and ops manual, and controls his crew accordingly, there is never any bending. If the CP is slack..........it goes all the way down the line. Monkey see Monkey do. The delegations call for someone to set the example.

If its a private operator, it all depends very much on how he has been taught. if he has been shown how to bend the rules, he'll bend them until they break. In 30 yrs of flying as CP or CFI i really don't think rules can be "bent". its by the book or broken, nothing in the flex area.

[Tibbsy]

Not broad brush at all

So you must be one hell of a drop zone tart if you can equivocally say that the majority of skydiving ops are dodgy, big call mate. I agree that there are rogue operators in the industry but the broad brush statement doesn't help anyone.

Fair point j3pipercub but this is one of those rare occasions where I can speak from experience. Yes - I have worked at a number of dropzones in the past but I've also had the pleasure(?) of jumping at many more of these places (with the exception of Tasmania & WA). There are plenty of DZs where I just won't jump at because of the questionable aviation practices there. The sad fact is that the majority i.e. more than half of the DZ operators engage in dodgy aviation practice either deliberately or out of ignorance.


Unfortunately, as with any industry (trucking comes to mind) rogue operators do give the rest of the industry a bad name.That doesn't mean that there aren't good operators out there.


I also think that there is sufficient anecdotal evidence of a poor level of compliance amongst DZ operators. Incidents that I have seen include:

• Unbriefed formation flying with unqualified pilots
• Dropping through cloud (in places not approved for that particular practice)
• IMC without appropriate licences
• IMC without appropriate clearances
• IMC in aircraft not fit for IFR operations
• Dodgy maintenance releases and practices
• SEVERE pressure on pilots to 'bend ze rules'
• Flight in the flight levels without access to or use of supplementary oxygen
• EXTREMELY low flying and beat ups
• dropping within CTAF(R)s on the live side of an active circuit
• tandems being hung up on the outside of an aircraft for 20 mins because the pilot wasn't carrying a hook knife to cut them away
• Flight with far less than min reserves
• Severe overloading - A VERY COMMON OCCURRENCE

And these are just the things that I've thought of in the last minute.


The Australian Parachute Federation only requires that pilots have: not less than 200 hours total aeronautical experience, of which not less than 100 hours must be as pilot in command and have not less than 10 hours aeronautical experience as pilot in command of the aircraft type from which the descent is made. The result is a lot of low time pilots (read PPL level) begging for hours who are flying without the supervision and guidance of a chief pilot. Given that a very large proportion of jump flying these days is carrying paying members of the public as tandem 'students' , you have to wonder why CASA continues to allow this to happen. These are effectively commercial operations and should be treated as such. But I digress


I stick by my assertion j3pipercub that the majority (ie more than half) of the skydiving operations do pressure pilots into 'bending the rules'. There are always plenty of other low time pilots willing to step into the breach to take your place which is why these operators don't hesitate to apply the screws.


Stick to your guns, respectfully explain why you can't and won't break the rules and if you get fired, move on.

[Cyclone Bob]

I think the worst operators tend to be the ones where the CEO, CP, Training standards manager and Maintenance controller are the same person. It staggers me that this is actually legal.

[j3pipercub]

Hello TRANSAIR

[kiwiblue]

When in a hole, a wise man STOPS digging...

Originally Posted by pyote

and so where are you going to fly with 1.5 hours fuel. If you want an hours reserve??? Please we all fly them with 4 hours of fuel and more...

Oh Please Pyote, get over yourself. We do not all fly them with 4 hours fuel at all. That is sheer nonsense. At 4 hours fuel, you would be operating at or very near to full-tanks all the time... I don't think so. The Islander was never designed with that length of leg in mind -nor was my bladder!. It's strength lies in its ability to haul a good load of pax or freight short distances.

An example or two of some of the places I have worked them:

RPT operation, crossing 32NM to an island. Usual load, 9 pax & 15Kg luggage allowance each. Total return flight time 0.7 hrs. Usual fuel load 1.5 hrs.

Unscheduled scenic flight operation. Usual load 9 pax, minimal (hand) luggage. Leg 1: 0.7 hrs, Leg 2: 0.5 hrs. Usual fuel load 2.2 hrs.

Ambulance flights. Usual load: 2 crew (if IFR), 2 attendants (Dr. & nurse) patient on stretcher, necessary medical equipment and aircraft stretcher kit. 2 destinations, flight time 0.9 hrs or 2.2 hrs, Usual fuel load: Full fuel.

As you will see from those fuel figures, I'm partial to carrying a bit of 'Mum & the Kids' fuel too!

The only place off the top of my head that I can thing of a full-fuel load being usual for a BN-2 would be something like a CoastWatch operation. In virtually every other operation the fuel load is appropriate to the operation being conducted, optimising pax/freight payload, as it is for every other GA operation and airframe I can think of!

Your suggestion of everyone carrying full fuel all the time is peurile.

[YMML]

A37575

Integrity counts for nought...
By your own admission your example is very old, perhaps things have improved with the passage of time? You also refer only to one example of one chief pilot....
One anecdotal example does not represent the industry. Sure, there are some that are exactly as you describe. I continue to assert that most are not like this and fully agree with Stallie and Capt Claret! Pilots confuse their own pressure with that of the bosses.
If you're asked to do something the regs dont allow; perhaps don't immediately respond with "**** off you idiot thats illegal!". Try providing 2 or 3 options that may also get the job done that don't involve any non compliance.. They may not be quite as convenient but often will suffice.

Win-Win is the name of the game...

btw. I'm sure many could provide examples of times where chief pilots have favoured the pilot known for their integrity over the rule breaker (I can).

[sailing]

"I think the worst operators tend to be the ones where the CEO, CP, Training standards manager and Maintenance controller are the same person. It staggers me that this is actually legal."

Thank you for these words of ?wisdom? Cyclone Bob.

My last flying job was for a small operator with a 172 and a DH82, doing mostly joy flights and occasional charter/airwork. I did most of the flying as the owner/CEO/CP/TSM/MC/Office person had other, more lucrative employment.
The operation was always done by the book, and the only pressure I was under was not to break the rules. I was always backed up if I had to cancel a flight due weather or whatever.
I fail to see how tripling the workforce to shuffle the same bits of paper over our only desk would have made the operation any safer, and it certainly would have absorbed the profit that paid for the odd avionics upgrade.
But then I'm making the rash assumption that you're a working pilot, or do you occupy a CASA desk?

[slice]

sailing - if the DH82 and 172 were operated concurrently the owner/CEO/CP/TSM etc. etc. was already breaking the rules as CAO 82 states quite clearly that an operation with more than 1 aircraft requires a FULL TIME CP.

Ignorance is bliss as they say!

[j3pipercub]

Hey Sailing,

Have you ever worked for a company with a workforce over two? I'm guessing not cos if you had you probably wouldn't be making that statement. Having a CEO/CP can and often DOES lead to a HUGE conflict of interest on the cashflow vs. safety. Make them the Maint. Controller and then just sit back and watch the fun, or leave which is the more prudent option. If you can't see that then you really are as stupid as your last post eludes to.

I honestly can't believe that there are people like you wasting oxygen!!! Working pilot? Working for CASA? FOR FCK'S SAKE GROW UP!!!

So your last flying job was with the C172 and DH82? Really hope your pumping gas now mate! REALLY!

j3

[Cyclone Bob]

Thanks for the backup J3

Hey Sailing: It wasn't a broad brush statement but based on my observations as a WORKING PILOT the dodgier operations i have come across are run by one man band management. I absolutely think its a conflict of interest to be all things to a safety critical operation like flying. And I wasn't picking on small operators either. When I made my post I had a much larger operator in mind. 6+ twins on IFR ops. And I'm not saying all such operations are shonky mind you. Some I know of are real hot operators and don't cut any corners. I just think in this nanny state day and age the fact that one person can legally do all these jobs surprises me.