Quick synopsis
Ok, if you're not into watching the entire 5 hours of webcast, I'll give you a bit of what happened.
NTSB did a special findings report on parachute operations. They found repeated maintenance and pilot causes based on the study of 32 crashes (incl 172 fatalities).
Parachute operators operate under FAR part 91, giving them the same latitude as we would have as private owners: we must comply with AD's, but not MFG TBO, etc( one crash aircraft, t'prop DeHav, had a 3600 hr TBO for engines, Left- which failed, was at 6500 hours, right was 5400 hours). The greatest part was the pilot. Parts 121 and 135 require much more stringent requirements for commercial air taxi/for hire operations, including much more stringent pilot training/proficiency requirements. Good example was a pilot, due to unfam with AC, feathered the GOOD engine after an engine failure on a twin.
Lots of aircraft involved in these crashed were found not airworthy even by part 91 definitions with fatal flaws, AD's not complied with, falsified 337's for jump mods, etc.
Similarly, pilots were found to be a significant cause - often not having truly being current out on the subject AC. Lots of issues were detectable in pre-flight that were not. Many cases were dual failures - maintenance issues caused a loss of power, pilot error/not following emergency procedures/NOT FLYING THE AIRPLANE were the pilot related ones. Preflight detectable issues were hit over and over. A lot of over gross/out of cg range issues.
The Board spent a lot of time debating the value of part 91. Consensus (and recommendations to the FAA) is that parachute operations be relooked at as separate function in part 91. Similarly, they also want the FAA to look at fractional ownership as a new category, closer to 135 than 91.
That's what I remember. It's a lot of the same dumb stuff. Think about that before you rush.
Rick 90432 canopy
