Skydive aircraft stall spin...aaagh

[Puma44]

Seems we might have to find that sub-sub-chapter in the FAA regulations precisely talking about wreckless flying in skydive planes. I don't have time now but I'm willing to take a look at it.

This is why there are so many FAA regulations; bone head moves like this guy made, whether intentional or not.  No amount of regulation is ever going to prevent poor judgement and lack of common sense.

[cpxxx]

Early on, when they were setting up the skydive operation. This was before I joined. They had a Cessna 182 and brought in a Commercial pilot to fly for them. He climbed with the stall warning chirping away. At some point he turned to avoid a cloud. Thus setting up the classic incipient spin scenario. The 182 duly obliged and I think they lost 3000 feet in the spin before he got it back. At this point he started to climb again but the guys in the back had had enough and asked to jump out there and then.

He was asked to leave on the spot. In any case no one was willing to fly with him again. It's incredible to think that someone with a Commercial licence should have such poor flying skills that he thought climbing with the stall warning blaring away was OK.

[SFRT - Frenchy]

A commercial license is really not much, wit10h 300ish you are still unexperienced. And so are you after 1000h of flight instructing. You should see tyre 1500h cfi we hire as right seater on the Metro, they go from God's gift to aviation to I'm going to drive a truck instead in 1H.
Off course, it's a gross generalization with a hint of sarcazum. 

[cpxxx]

True but you have wonder at stuff that even student pilots should know. You're right about experience. I'va about seven hundred hours skydive flying. Maybe another three hundred should see me getting the hang of it!

You should see tyre 1500h cfi we hire as right seater on the Metro, they go from God's gift to aviation to I'm going to drive a truck instead in 1H.

Well the Metro has a bit of rep, you may be aware of a Metro that flipped inverted on landing at Cork Airport earlier this year. An inexperienced Captain paired with a right seater who only had about 350 hours and was three weeks into the job. The new guy  was flying that day. Not good.

[Babalonian]

*Takes note: if ever a sky diveing pilot, never execute arobatics or stalls with paying customer(s) onboard - contrary to popular belief, skydivers only like jumping out of perfectly safe and sound flying aircraft being competently flown.

[The Jekyll]

*Takes note: if ever a sky diveing pilot, never execute arobatics or stalls with paying customer(s) onboard - contrary to popular belief, skydivers only like jumping out of perfectly safe and sound flying aircraft being competently flown.

   So true, I've had enuf close calls jumping from a stable platform (all my fault). I would not want to Safety or J/M in a situation like this, the potential for disaster is huge.

[Traveler]

Yup, it seriously looks like it was a planned spin to follow the divers through their fall after they jumped and have more jumpers jump off the airplane to join them. The pilot didn't look exited at all and seemed like this was definitely not his first time doing this. The most dangerous part is not the spin itself if the plane can recover easily, its the overspeed danger while leveling out after the recover.

But I have to agree its dangerous jumping off a spinning airplane but if the pilot was okay with filming everything, its might be because he knows he is allowed to do it legally and thus, marginally safe I suppose.

Heck, I wouldn't mind to be either the pilot or the jumpers. But please don't tell my mom...  

It is illegal by every FAA or ICA rule that I know of.   First if it was a planed and executed spin.  That is a basic aerobatic maneuver.

•   conducting aerobatic maneuvers is not permitted with passengers.
•   Aerobatic flight in a parachute area is not permitted.

[colmbo]

•   conducting aerobatic maneuvers is not permitted with passengers.

In the U.S. aerobatics are legal with passengers.  If it wasn't it would be really hard to take someone up for an acro ride.  In the US if you have a passenger both you and the passengers must wear an approved parachute.

[Traveler]

In the U.S. aerobatics are legal with passengers.  If it wasn't it would be really hard to take someone up for an acro ride.  In the US if you have a passenger both you and the passengers must wear an approved parachute.

Any Instructor can instruct and give instruction in aerobatics , and yes, both must be wearing approved parachutes, but every one receiving instructions must have fully functional controls.   That means no more then one passenger.   read the regs.

[Golfer]

Any Instructor can instruct and give instruction in aerobatics , and yes, both must be wearing approved parachutes, but every one receiving instructions must have fully functional controls.   That means no more then one passenger.   read the regs.

Whose regulations are you referring to and cite your source because that isn't correct.  You absolutely may perform aerobatics with passengers, without giving them instruction, without them having a set of controls and without being a CFI in the first place.  Each occupant will require a parachute subject to normal parachute repacking procedures.

There are 4+ seat aerobatic airplanes out there.

[colmbo]

Any Instructor can instruct and give instruction in aerobatics , and yes, both must be wearing approved parachutes, but every one receiving instructions must have fully functional controls.   That means no more then one passenger.   read the regs.

Please quote the FAR that prohibits aerobatics with passengers.

[MachFly]

Any Instructor can instruct and give instruction in aerobatics , and yes, both must be wearing approved parachutes, but every one receiving instructions must have fully functional controls.   That means no more then one passenger.   read the regs.

I think you combined and confused the regulations for spins without parachutes and regulations for aerobatics with passengers.

Your thinking about §91.307(c) and §91.307(d)(1), take a took at §91.303.

§91.303 — Aerobatic flight.

No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight—
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;

(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;

(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;

(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;

(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or

(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.

For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.

[Doc. No. 18834, 54 FR 34308, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91–227, 56 FR 65661, Dec. 17, 1991]

It says nothing about receiving flight instruction, having controls, or having passengers.

read the regs.

 

[cpxxx]

Someone should tell Bob Hoover:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp2Uc9XvmjY&feature=related

[Traveler]

I think you combined and confused the regulations for spins without parachutes and regulations for aerobatics with passengers.

Your thinking about §91.307(c) and §91.307(d)(1), take a took at §91.303.

It says nothing about receiving flight instruction, having controls, or having passengers.


 

You are correct.

Someone should tell Bob Hoover:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp2Uc9XvmjY&feature=related

Watch the film again and listen to who the passengers were in the back of a aircraft, perhaps a demo flight being given by Bob Hoover, it’s sometime between January 1960 and September 1965, That’s when EUGENE M. ZUCKERT, was SECAF.  Hoover was a pitchman for Rockwell Aviation and test pilot.   I’m sure it was a military demo flight, not subject to FAA regs.

Notice that the camera in the video presented while Bob performs the  reenactment is a video mounted in the aircraft, there is no passengers in the aircraft in which he performs his reenactment.

[whiteman]

If you watch the vid all the way through the "credits" at the end say the pilot was given additional training in spin recognition/recovery.  Sounds like it was not intentional.

took almost the end of the second page before someone mentioned it says it was not intentional. Can any of yall read? Explains it at the end of the video, pilot's run in was to slow and the plane stalled.