From memory, they clip themselves to the floor for restraint and C of G issue avoidance.

The jumpers do need to be restrained, but the restraint doesn't comply with the crash requirement protection provided by a seat designed to comply with the FAR. They use generally a single point anchored to the floor, the APF authorise/approve each individual aircraft type system.

https://libraryonline.erau.edu/onlin...ts/AM98-11.pdf

I thought those engines were so mature technically they never fail if maintained properly.

good effort
 

Wow. What's best glide in a caravan and what does that sight picture look like if the prop is still fine?

(Would it feather automatically? Not clear if we're talking partial or full loss of power)


I hear these guys on guys on the radio pretty regularly and they seem super professional and courteous to the mix of traffic.

Wishing those hurt a speedy recovery

Ok thanks

Yes, definitely a Garrett.

DF.

yeah - nah. Spend any time in the skydive world you'll see death and severe injury all the time. Most of it doesn't draw media attention like a downed aircraft does.

Only ever had one injury, make that two, injuries that I'm aware of on our DZ, first jump student broke a leg and I a twisted an ankle on a down wind landing during a spot landing comp.

makes sense - your first post sounded like the usual mental gymnastics jumpers use to rationalise the risk.

Looks like a Honeywell to me from the pictures.

Idiots on Ch9 saying it was a “runway crash”

Are you suggesting that an under-paid pilot caused this aircraft to crash? Or is it due to the maintenance facility that's not doing their job because the company is cutting corners?

Most of us 'oldies' refer to them as Garrett's.... otherwise no one knows what you're talking about!

Okay, so it was a Honeywell - which was originally designed in the 1950s by Garrett.

DF.

Or could he be suggesting the aircraft was grossly overweight, or ran out of fuel or the pilot was fatigued or maintenance issued not reported. Surely none of these things would occur in an Australian parachute operation under the rigorous scrutiny of the Parachute Federation and CASA.

Surely seventeen in a C208 is a tad overloaded though?

DF.

That would depend on the weight of the aircraft. For an aircraft to be “overloaded” it means that MTOW has been exceeded.

There are a lot of seats in a 14 seat 208 and they weigh a lot, so so with seats removed and a low amount of fuel, the world is your oyster for cramming in pax, subject to regulatory limitations on the number of passengers.

Is a pilot more likely to overload an aircraft because they are being paid less?

There are plenty of operators who have CASA approvals ripping off their staff with sham contracting and/or wages well under the award rate. Network Aviation PIA - PPRuNe Forums
That is the domain of Fair Work Commission, not CASA, and they can't do anything if they don't know about it.

CASA pretending that commercial parachute operations are private is one of the more blatant, longstanding examples of corruption in the aviation sector.