Jump plane crash in Montana

[mike regish]

http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2007/05/12/661478.html&cvqh=itn_plane5

[John[_1_]]

On May 12, 4:06 pm, "mike regish" > wrote:
> http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2007/...

My thoughts and prayers for the families and friends now dealing with
the loss.

The plane involved was a Cessna 182, an aircraft normally certificated
for four persons. If (and I understand this is a huge if) initial
press reports are correct, there were two instructor jumpers and two
student jumpers aboard with plans for them to make tandem jumps. So
in addition to those four, there had to be a pilot - for a total of 5
souls aboard. I know it is likely that the passenger seats were
removed and that if the plane carrying reduced fuel, it could have
been under gross (not taking into account of density altitude).

A question to the group: What waivers or STC's or similar provisions
are available to allow a jump plane to operate in this manner? I am
not questioning the rationale of such things since jump aircraft do
operate safely the vast majority of the time and we have NO
substantive information for the reason(s) for this mishap. I just
wondered.

take care . . .

John

[mike regish]

I've seen our local jump plane taking off (a 182-I think) so loaded that the
nosewheel was almost off the ground during taxi. Definitely more than 4
people aboard-maybe up to 6.

mike

"John" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 12, 4:06 pm, "mike regish" > wrote:
>> http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2007/...
>
> My thoughts and prayers for the families and friends now dealing with
> the loss.
>
> The plane involved was a Cessna 182, an aircraft normally certificated
> for four persons. If (and I understand this is a huge if) initial
> press reports are correct, there were two instructor jumpers and two
> student jumpers aboard with plans for them to make tandem jumps. So
> in addition to those four, there had to be a pilot - for a total of 5
> souls aboard. I know it is likely that the passenger seats were
> removed and that if the plane carrying reduced fuel, it could have
> been under gross (not taking into account of density altitude).
>
> A question to the group: What waivers or STC's or similar provisions
> are available to allow a jump plane to operate in this manner? I am
> not questioning the rationale of such things since jump aircraft do
> operate safely the vast majority of the time and we have NO
> substantive information for the reason(s) for this mishap. I just
> wondered.
>
> take care . . .
>
> John
>

[Maxwell]

"John" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 12, 4:06 pm, "mike regish" > wrote:
>> http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2007/...
>
> A question to the group: What waivers or STC's or similar provisions
> are available to allow a jump plane to operate in this manner? I am
> not questioning the rationale of such things since jump aircraft do
> operate safely the vast majority of the time and we have NO
> substantive information for the reason(s) for this mishap. I just
> wondered.
>

I used to fly our club's 182 jump plane, back in the 70s. With the seats
removed and never more than half fuel, the aircraft always flew very well
with a pilot and 4 jumpers. We never flew more, and based on my experience,
I would seriously question anyone that did. Unless perhaps it was an all
girl team of lightweights.

[Dale[_3_]]

In article >,
"mike regish" > wrote:

> I've seen our local jump plane taking off (a 182-I think) so loaded that the
> nosewheel was almost off the ground during taxi. Definitely more than 4
> people aboard-maybe up to 6.
>
> mike


There are STCs that allow 4 or 5 passengers in 182s depending on the
year.

It's not at all unusual for a legally loaded Cessna to have a very light
nosewheel so you can't make any judgement based on that observation Mike.

[[email protected]]

Maxwell > wrote:
>
> "John" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> A question to the group: What waivers or STC's or similar provisions
>> are available to allow a jump plane to operate in this manner?

I'm not _sure_, because I don't drive. I just get in, wait until 10,000-
11,000 AGL, look out the door to make sure I'm where I want to be, then
get out. But here are the bits and pieces I've picked up. This is all
based on a 182B (narrow body, no back window) with Continental O-470
engine.

Weight and balance things: Nearly all of the interior trim is gone.
The copilot's seat and yoke are gone. The pilot's seat is the stock
item. There is some padding on the floor to sit on - in the particular
plane I'm familiar with, this is basically a piece of foam about 1.5"
(4 cm) thick that is cut to fit on the floor, and has a cloth covering
sewn over it. There is a frame immediately aft of the side luggage door,
and that frame has a piece of sheet aluminum attached to it to make a
wall - you can't put any people or stuff further aft than that in the
plane. There is a step attached to the right main gear strut just above
the wheel - it is a piece of steel about 6" wide by 14" long by maybe
3/16" thick (15 cm x 35 cm x 5 mm). Each jumper is wearing _about_
15 lbs (7 kg) of equipment, plus or minus. Jumpers are encouraged to
"scrunch" towards the front (given the constraints of the belts and the
seating arrangement) on take-off.

STC things: The pilot has his normal seat belt, but there are seat belts
attached to the floor for four jumpers, and I know the floor seat belts
are covered by an STC. You can get wing extensions that attach to the
ends of the wings and I'm pretty sure these are under an STC as well - I
don't know if they increase your useful load or just increase the climb
performance. The door is modified to hinge at the top - I don't know if
this is an STC but I suspect it is. It's the stock door, but with the
lower forward corner cut off to clear the strut when it opens, and (I
think) a different latching mechanism. The cut-off lower forward corner
is permanently attached to the door frame, so the door more or less seals
when shut. The latch is a rotary handle in the middle of the door, one
rod running forward to a latch bolt, and another rod running aft to a
latch bolt.

Other: I understand that on the "early" 182s, before 1960something, an
O-540 would fit the stock engine mounts, but then the cowling wouldn't
fit back around the wider engine. After the early 1960s, the body got a
little wider and the cowling would fit around the larger engine. I
think this change corresponds with when the 182 got a rear window as
well. I'm pretty sure the bigger engine actually decreases your useful
load, but it does improve performance.

> With the seats removed and never more than half fuel, the aircraft
> always flew very well with a pilot and 4 jumpers.

The place I jump at typically fuels for "three full loads plus reserve".
I don't know what that is in pounds or gallons but I know it's not
totally full. But they don't seem to be shy about sticking the tanks
and getting more fuel if they need it.

> We never flew more, and based on my experience, I would seriously
> question anyone that did.

Again, as someone that doesn't drive, I've "picked up" the same thing.
4 semi-reasonably-sized jumpers + pilot in a 182 is OK; 5 jumpers +
pilot is a bad idea.

Matt Roberds