Nine Dead in Fox Glacier Crash, New Zealand
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: land down under
Age: 43
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How are these parachutists restrained in this type of aircraft? Do they have seats fitted, restrained in any other way,
Skydiving aircraft dont have seats fitted (and no, its not a weight or room saving idea, this comes at the expense of other things, like radios etc). It is to reduce objects that ripcords and other things can get caught on and release the canopy inside the cabin inflight.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greta
Age: 67
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cresco, Caravan, XL ect have two narrow benches running down each side of the aircraft. You sit straddled across them facing rear. 5 rows of two abreast for the fletcher and cresco.
Australia it is mandatory to use SPR on TO and Landing and below 1000'. I belive NZ does not have the SPR rule.
I think the XL just appears louder as the rate of climb is a lot slower and hangs overhead longer. maybe the intake of the cresco is different or the -34ag engine is quieter than the normal version.
Australia it is mandatory to use SPR on TO and Landing and below 1000'. I belive NZ does not have the SPR rule.
I think the XL just appears louder as the rate of climb is a lot slower and hangs overhead longer. maybe the intake of the cresco is different or the -34ag engine is quieter than the normal version.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZ aviation regulator tightens skydive rules - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
NZ aviation regulator tightens skydive rules
By New Zealand correspondent Dominique Schwartz
Posted Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:36pm AEST
New Zealand's civil aviation authority is restricting the number of skydivers a plane can carry just 10 days after a deadly crash at Fox Glacier.
Eight passengers and the pilot died when the plane came down shortly after take off.
Australian Adam Bennett was among the eight passengers on board the ill-fated Fletcher FU24.
The civil aviation authority says skydive operators using such planes will now be allowed to carry only six passengers and that all parachutists and their equipment must be weighed.
The authority has raised concerns about weight distribution in skydiving planes, but transport accident investigators say the directive is precautionary and the cause of the Fox Glacier crash is still to be determined.
Di
NZ aviation regulator tightens skydive rules
By New Zealand correspondent Dominique Schwartz
Posted Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:36pm AEST
New Zealand's civil aviation authority is restricting the number of skydivers a plane can carry just 10 days after a deadly crash at Fox Glacier.
Eight passengers and the pilot died when the plane came down shortly after take off.
Australian Adam Bennett was among the eight passengers on board the ill-fated Fletcher FU24.
The civil aviation authority says skydive operators using such planes will now be allowed to carry only six passengers and that all parachutists and their equipment must be weighed.
The authority has raised concerns about weight distribution in skydiving planes, but transport accident investigators say the directive is precautionary and the cause of the Fox Glacier crash is still to be determined.
Di
Join Date: May 2009
Location: up and down
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some operators ask their pilots to fly at lower Np, prop RPM, which reduces the noise one would hear. XL and Cresco 750 shouldn't sound different at the same settings, the 4 blade prop isn't certified here yet, i think???
I've had the cresco stall on me because of too many fellas down the back. Fortunately I was at FL160, happened to a mate in another walter, and there's that one of the XL on youtube. It's a given that these are all on jump run where the jumpers have to be at the back, where the door is, but at low airspeeds it only takes a small amount of excess weight too aft for things to tip slightly, then get worse slowly yet increasing exponentially..
I hope this spurs on a few of the 'dodgy' operators to get their act together. I believe a few of them are virtually self regulated with rules, as in they make the rules?
Terrible none the less. RIP and condolences to the families and friends.
I've had the cresco stall on me because of too many fellas down the back. Fortunately I was at FL160, happened to a mate in another walter, and there's that one of the XL on youtube. It's a given that these are all on jump run where the jumpers have to be at the back, where the door is, but at low airspeeds it only takes a small amount of excess weight too aft for things to tip slightly, then get worse slowly yet increasing exponentially..
I hope this spurs on a few of the 'dodgy' operators to get their act together. I believe a few of them are virtually self regulated with rules, as in they make the rules?
Terrible none the less. RIP and condolences to the families and friends.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Key shows sympathy after skydiving tragedy | Stuff.co.nz
I for one certainly would not call this a freak accident. Especially when within a few days of the occurence we have a directive come out telling operators what they should have been told, and known, before this type of operation, with this aircraft type ever started.
I for one certainly would not call this a freak accident. Especially when within a few days of the occurence we have a directive come out telling operators what they should have been told, and known, before this type of operation, with this aircraft type ever started.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: the moon
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so it will be pilot error, or will it be a system error at the skydive company? The thing I can't get my head round is, if the margin is so fine that a slightly misloaded a/c or a shift in weight results in an unrecoverable situation for the pilot (as it seems to have here), if the margin is that fine then why the hell did this thing ever get certified for 8 pax in the back. They are very very quick to send out this emergency AD, so something is obviously very wrong and obviously wrong,
my question, who checks out the skydiving mod and signs it off for use in the first place?
my question, who checks out the skydiving mod and signs it off for use in the first place?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too many parachutists are wayward, ill-disciplined yahoos. Add to that the nervous bravado displayed by many, in order to appear macho before a jump (especially if there are girls around) and you have a recipe for disaster. I can just imagine them larking around in the back of the aircraft; the unfortunate pilot had no control over them and he will be castigated at the enquiry. They should all be strapped in, like any other passengers, until they are at a safe altitude.
One of my mates (JB) was dropping parachutists from a C182. The PJI was the last one out, and, for a joke, leaned over, withdrew the ignition key and took it with him. JB was now faced with a real forced landing, which he carried out immaculately.
JB beat the PJI to the ground, secured the aircraft and then beat the PJI to the ground!
One of my mates (JB) was dropping parachutists from a C182. The PJI was the last one out, and, for a joke, leaned over, withdrew the ignition key and took it with him. JB was now faced with a real forced landing, which he carried out immaculately.
JB beat the PJI to the ground, secured the aircraft and then beat the PJI to the ground!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: the moon
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record the boys in Fox were not 'wayward, ill-disciplined yahoos'
the owner operator was in his 50's, his best mate was in his 60's the other two jumpers were old enough to have got through the yahoo stage. They had run a very professional outfit for a long time. They were good experienced tandem jumpers and I can promise you they would not have been larking about in the back of that a/c. Its pretty obvious that it was out of CoG and very much so, and the emergency AD indicates that with 8 pax the margins are slim or non-existant.
In my opinion if the emergency AD becomes a permanent thing then whoever certified that mod for 8 people is at fault right from the get go.
the owner operator was in his 50's, his best mate was in his 60's the other two jumpers were old enough to have got through the yahoo stage. They had run a very professional outfit for a long time. They were good experienced tandem jumpers and I can promise you they would not have been larking about in the back of that a/c. Its pretty obvious that it was out of CoG and very much so, and the emergency AD indicates that with 8 pax the margins are slim or non-existant.
In my opinion if the emergency AD becomes a permanent thing then whoever certified that mod for 8 people is at fault right from the get go.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Godzone
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too many parachutists are wayward, ill-disciplined yahoos. Add to that the nervous bravado displayed by many, in order to appear macho before a jump (especially if there are girls around) and you have a recipe for disaster. I can just imagine them larking around in the back of the aircraft; the unfortunate pilot had no control over them and he will be castigated at the enquiry. They should all be strapped in, like any other passengers, until they are at a safe altitude.
One of my mates (JB) was dropping parachutists from a C182. The PJI was the last one out, and, for a joke, leaned over, withdrew the ignition key and took it with him. JB was now faced with a real forced landing, which he carried out immaculately.
JB beat the PJI to the ground, secured the aircraft and then beat the PJI to the ground!
One of my mates (JB) was dropping parachutists from a C182. The PJI was the last one out, and, for a joke, leaned over, withdrew the ignition key and took it with him. JB was now faced with a real forced landing, which he carried out immaculately.
JB beat the PJI to the ground, secured the aircraft and then beat the PJI to the ground!
and to take the keys out of a 182 you have to lean over past the pilot, turn the mags off and pull the keys out - sounds like your mate wasn't paying attention. i've had the owner of a 172 ask how my forced landings were before pulling the mixture and jumping out. i thought if he wants me to descend with the engine shock cooling from 6000', then it's his plane not mine, so i left the mixture out and landed. as a CPL flying jumpers, a glide approach from high overhead the aerodrome is hardly pushing the limits of ability, and is hardly worthy of a 'beat to the ground'
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the unfortunate pilot had no control over them and he will be castigated at the enquiry.
Unfortunately what often happens is that the pilot goes along with the larking about, getting into the spirit of the thing as it were, and takes his or her eye off the ball for a second or two... which is all it takes.
Of course if the jumpers were properly restrained for takeoff... CG properly calculated, even if done on a "standard" loadsheet... well they would all be alive.
Missing Link
Some thoughts as i feel there is something missing in this sad story:
Yes some jumpers can clown around and there would be room for them all to go to the back for some reason and create a problem for the Pilot. But here we have a professional operation with mature experienced jumpmasters, one of which was a director in the company. These guys would have been simply getting through the day with as little drama as possible.
I do not see overloading as an issue here this aircraft should be quite capable with 8 in the back and have spare capacity. By comparison a 185 will carry 6 and is a much smaller aircraft. Others will know the details I am not familiar with the exact numbers.
If it is just a C of G issue it would be expected to cause an accident such as this with a 'full house'. That is max weight cabin full down to the back.
Standard practice for light aircraft loading would dictate that seating such as it is would be from the front to the back and remember we are not dealing with clowns here.
These converted Fletchers have been around for years now and have done tens of thousands of jump flights. If C of G is so critical there must have been many close calls before on take off and those operating them would have been aware. Especially this Pilot who appears to have been very capable and experienced in this type of flying.
It seems quite proper and logical for the CAA to impose limitations in the meantime given the evidence at the accident site, but this would not imply that C of G is considered the sole cause of this accident.
I think there is some missing part cause to this accident. A control problem could arise from jammed controls, broken control cables or rods etc. Maybe something as simple as a spare seatbelt or other object up front falling down and causing a jam. Fletcher control runs are quite exposed in the cockpit from memory. Jammed or mis set trim sure can cause drama as well. My knowledge of the Fletcher is very limited am just speculating here.
Once the aircraft did pitch to a high nose up attitude then the Jumpers in the back would have been thrown to the back of the cabin if unrestrained.
Then serious C of G problem would most likely prevent control being regained at such low level. The reason for the initial high pitch up may be the key here. I think the pilot and occupants would have done every thing possible to avoid this accident and certainly nothing unresponsible.
Yes some jumpers can clown around and there would be room for them all to go to the back for some reason and create a problem for the Pilot. But here we have a professional operation with mature experienced jumpmasters, one of which was a director in the company. These guys would have been simply getting through the day with as little drama as possible.
I do not see overloading as an issue here this aircraft should be quite capable with 8 in the back and have spare capacity. By comparison a 185 will carry 6 and is a much smaller aircraft. Others will know the details I am not familiar with the exact numbers.
If it is just a C of G issue it would be expected to cause an accident such as this with a 'full house'. That is max weight cabin full down to the back.
Standard practice for light aircraft loading would dictate that seating such as it is would be from the front to the back and remember we are not dealing with clowns here.
These converted Fletchers have been around for years now and have done tens of thousands of jump flights. If C of G is so critical there must have been many close calls before on take off and those operating them would have been aware. Especially this Pilot who appears to have been very capable and experienced in this type of flying.
It seems quite proper and logical for the CAA to impose limitations in the meantime given the evidence at the accident site, but this would not imply that C of G is considered the sole cause of this accident.
I think there is some missing part cause to this accident. A control problem could arise from jammed controls, broken control cables or rods etc. Maybe something as simple as a spare seatbelt or other object up front falling down and causing a jam. Fletcher control runs are quite exposed in the cockpit from memory. Jammed or mis set trim sure can cause drama as well. My knowledge of the Fletcher is very limited am just speculating here.
Once the aircraft did pitch to a high nose up attitude then the Jumpers in the back would have been thrown to the back of the cabin if unrestrained.
Then serious C of G problem would most likely prevent control being regained at such low level. The reason for the initial high pitch up may be the key here. I think the pilot and occupants would have done every thing possible to avoid this accident and certainly nothing unresponsible.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It has been quite a few years since I flew Fletchers on Ag work. But from memory the trim was always wound right back for landing, and as you waited for the load to be deposited in the hopper part of the pretake off checks, an extremely brief check, but it did involve winding the trim full forward, just to counter the load. The hopper was quite compact in as far load spread was concerned, very close to the C of G. There was a full bulkhead immediately aft of the cockpit in these versions of the FU24.
How much has the Walter conversion changed the configuration? is that bulkhead still in place? does it still have manual fore and aft trim control?
Would it be possible, with a combination of aft trim for take off, and the heaviest people at the aft end of the jumpers position to put the C of G so far aft as to be uncontrollable??
The pilot had many hours of parachute dropping, but how much of it from Walter powered FU24's?? Would the acceleration at the beginning of the T/Off run be enough to inadvertantly push some of the jumpers to the back of the aircraft? does the Walter conversion have a bulkhead at the back of the fuselage to prevent any weight being placed to far aft?
No doubt all this will be answered when the accident report comes out, but as I suspect, as has already happened to some extent, it will be reactive, rather late now to be proactive.
How much has the Walter conversion changed the configuration? is that bulkhead still in place? does it still have manual fore and aft trim control?
Would it be possible, with a combination of aft trim for take off, and the heaviest people at the aft end of the jumpers position to put the C of G so far aft as to be uncontrollable??
The pilot had many hours of parachute dropping, but how much of it from Walter powered FU24's?? Would the acceleration at the beginning of the T/Off run be enough to inadvertantly push some of the jumpers to the back of the aircraft? does the Walter conversion have a bulkhead at the back of the fuselage to prevent any weight being placed to far aft?
No doubt all this will be answered when the accident report comes out, but as I suspect, as has already happened to some extent, it will be reactive, rather late now to be proactive.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: AGL
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There sure could be a few more questions that need to be asked here. The registration, if it has retained this from the beginning, would lead me to speculate that it is a FU 24-954 and as such may well have the electric trim. These trims were known to cause problems in the ag role and if it ran away or failed to the aft position with a load of unrestrained freight on take off then I wouldn't want to be flying it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
my experience as a Jump Pilot, which includes a fair amount of years dating back to the mid 80's to 2001, all as a non payed pilot, was that all behaved very well once in the aircraft. Most of the 'playing up' or 'bravado' as one has mentioned, was on the ground, but once inside the aircraft all behaved appropriately. The latter years were all dealing with Tandems and the solo's were generally for filming the punter that had paid for it. Not once did I feel that these individuals, no matter which outfit I flew for, behaved in other than a professional, business (but fun) like manner. I have not flown the fletcher but C172, C206, C180, and C185 in PJE ops and at all times they knew where to sit, where to stay, where their fare paying punter was to sit - and that's where they stayed until it was time to pin up - all without having to be told by me.
Runaway trim is feasible - its nasty and there is nothing you can do (unless you recognise it and have time to pull the circuit breaker) - my experience - just airborne in a PA18-180 towing a glider I pushed nose down on the electric trim and it kept going. Had the glider not released when I yelled on the RT to 'release', I might not well be here.
Another 'theory' above is control lock. Again not familiar with the fletcher - Pilot of a Cub in TG a few years ago had the seatbelt around the pax stick and took off with a glider in tow - got airborne and went into the vertical. Seatbelt was used as a 'gust lock' - would appear pilot forgot DVA's prior to takeoff. A/C stalled and pilot killed.
Runaway trim is feasible - its nasty and there is nothing you can do (unless you recognise it and have time to pull the circuit breaker) - my experience - just airborne in a PA18-180 towing a glider I pushed nose down on the electric trim and it kept going. Had the glider not released when I yelled on the RT to 'release', I might not well be here.
Another 'theory' above is control lock. Again not familiar with the fletcher - Pilot of a Cub in TG a few years ago had the seatbelt around the pax stick and took off with a glider in tow - got airborne and went into the vertical. Seatbelt was used as a 'gust lock' - would appear pilot forgot DVA's prior to takeoff. A/C stalled and pilot killed.
EUF trim
Just had a talk with a wise man who used to flight test these things in the dim dark ages. Seems EUF had a manual trim and indeed the electric ones could be a bit dodgy. The Fletcher has a powerful all moving tailplane with a large trim tab. If the trim is not set for take off for some reason control can be maintained but it may take two hands and arms to do so. The elevator has good pitch up movement but not so great on pitch down. The passengers were probably not restrained by any clip or similar to the Aircraft in which case they would tumble to the back at high pitch angles. There are known C of G issues with the Fletcher but various turbine varients have been around for the last 40 years or so as has the utility configeration. In terms of weight as a topdresser up to 1500 kg could be carried maybe not all legally. But with a hopper rear movement of load is obviously not possible and it can be dumped if in trouble. Eight pax would be around 800 kg total well within its capabilities. The Cresco is used for Parachute work more than the Fletcher conversion, of which only a few are used as Jump ships. This aircraft was recently converted and it was a quality job. She had been working at Fox for quite a few weeks so while not a long history not the 'first day on the job' either. The skydiving operator has been around for about 20 years and is well respected. Just some random snippets make of it what you will. The big question remains why this flight went so wrong while thousands of others have not.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: aussie
Age: 51
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and lets take it easy on the "all skydivers are cowboys" attitude...
remember it was the barnstormers etc that were the pioneers of what we do today.. things do change...
also not that long ago that there was a 707 doing barrel rolls ...
should I be scared to get on Qantas lest I get the same ... pilots are all the same right...??
remember it was the barnstormers etc that were the pioneers of what we do today.. things do change...
also not that long ago that there was a 707 doing barrel rolls ...
should I be scared to get on Qantas lest I get the same ... pilots are all the same right...??
Join Date: May 2009
Location: up and down
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EUF had about as big a birthday as they get. they had a write up about her in aviation news.
PAC have had a few issues with their electric elevator trims running away. It's happened to me in the XL several times but that's why they have a trim interrupt switch installed. In the cresco the electric trim has died once or twice, never ran away on me though. I havn't flown the walter before. They are built by the same guys, it would seem correct to assume the case is the same for them?
It's entirely possible the trim ran away on him, and given the low speed/altitude the situation became irrecoverable. It's also entirely possible the trim stopped working after landing (which would be set up in a nose high attitude) and the subsequent T/O has the same effect as a runaway trim. The XL has the manual trim center cockpit above your head, the crescos is under your seat and a real prick to use if you needed it in a hurry. Someone else can fill in the blanks better for the fletchers and walters. I believe their trim is on the left sidewall, and I also believe some have them removed, or the handles at least, after electric trims are installed. This being the case, is there another manual override??
Alot of skydivers are cowboys, many of them hyper retards, but never have I met one that would jepardise the safety of the flight. Lunatics yes, unsafe no.
PAC have had a few issues with their electric elevator trims running away. It's happened to me in the XL several times but that's why they have a trim interrupt switch installed. In the cresco the electric trim has died once or twice, never ran away on me though. I havn't flown the walter before. They are built by the same guys, it would seem correct to assume the case is the same for them?
It's entirely possible the trim ran away on him, and given the low speed/altitude the situation became irrecoverable. It's also entirely possible the trim stopped working after landing (which would be set up in a nose high attitude) and the subsequent T/O has the same effect as a runaway trim. The XL has the manual trim center cockpit above your head, the crescos is under your seat and a real prick to use if you needed it in a hurry. Someone else can fill in the blanks better for the fletchers and walters. I believe their trim is on the left sidewall, and I also believe some have them removed, or the handles at least, after electric trims are installed. This being the case, is there another manual override??
Alot of skydivers are cowboys, many of them hyper retards, but never have I met one that would jepardise the safety of the flight. Lunatics yes, unsafe no.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greta
Age: 67
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Started jumping in 1975 and still current. I've looked after a lot of jumpships over the years and have had to look after up to 400 jumpers at some boogies. Not all jumpers act as complete nutters. A lot are quite talented athletes in their fields. One thing i have noticed is that the majority are not aviation or aircraft savy. To most an aircraft is just a means to altitude. And they do not like aircraft. They are the number one killer in the sport. On take off apart from the odd yahoo ect, they are crapping bricks pretty well until 3 grand. When they do have to move it is done with care and consideration, last thing you need is a popped canopy going out the door. may be hard for a non jumper to understand that jumpers 'play safe'. If one good thing has come from the new APF and CASA regs concerning aircraft operations/ maintenance is things aren't so loose anymore. When you first arrive on a DZ you are weighed geared up and that is recorded for manifesting. Even pilots seem to have come up a grade now operators now pay them.
Interesting to see this thread still going. jumpers have a very good idea what happened, we can learn from that and apply it. just have to wait for the report to find out what initiated the accident. Until then we have moved on.
FH
Interesting to see this thread still going. jumpers have a very good idea what happened, we can learn from that and apply it. just have to wait for the report to find out what initiated the accident. Until then we have moved on.
FH