Piston engine or turbine, which is safer? It's an interesting question, and one that I have thought a lot about over my 20-plus years of skydiving. Unfortunately, I can't really offer an accurate answer. Anecdotally it seems, that piston Cessna 182's crash far more often than Otters or other turbine airplanes, but there are probably more Cessna 182's flying jumpers, and those Cessna crashes are rarely fatal. It's unusual when a big turbine airplane gets in trouble, but when it does, it seems far more likely to kill our friends.
I have been in three separate engine-out situations; once in a turbine Porter, once in a DC-3, and once in a Cessna 182. The Porter had a fuel line problem at 10,000 feet four miles from the drop zone with an AFF level 1 student on board, and an amazing pilot who kept his cool, gave me a great jump run toward the airport, then landed deadstick (Thanks Brian Higgins). The DC-3 lost an engine taking off at Zephyrhills, and simply flew a normal pattern to a fine landing with a full load of nervous but happy jumpers. The Cessna problem was with an idiot pilot who took off knowing he didn't have enough fuel, but figuring he could at least squeeze a load before running out… he did, to about 2,000 feet.
When I look through accident reports the primary cause is generally not catastrophic engine failure, but rather pilot error, and that happens with any kind of engine. So, rather than worry about the engine, I watch the pilot. I have a bit of an advantage in that area because I am a commercial pilot with single and multi-engine ratings, an instrument rating, and glider certification. I've also made thousands of jumps from Twin Otters, Cessnas, and tons of other airplanes, so I know what to look for and I have a sense of when things just don't "feel" right.
When I get in an airplane and I'm near the flight deck, I check the fuel status. In the Otter that means looking at both fuel gauges, and if I see anything less than about 200 pounds in each tank I'll mention it to the pilot. So far, that mention has never been necessary. If the fuel levels are low on takeoff I'll also track status on the climb by watching the fuel levels and burn rate. There have been a few flights where we have been cutting it close enough that the pilot has asked me to accept a long spot to avoid a second pass, and knowing the fuel levels on the climb helped me anticipate the request. I tend to check the other engine instruments too, and while I don't know what they all mean I can recognize a gauge that is out of normal range, and I have mentioned those sightings a few times. I also check the flaps prior to takeoff no matter where I'm sitting. The runway at The Ranch is somewhat short so flaps are a good idea for takeoff, although they may not be needed at bigger airports with more concrete. There have been a few takeoffs at The Ranch where jumpers have noticed the pilot forgot the flaps and called it out before the plane was airborne, so it pays to look. I also always wear a seatbelt just in case the takeoff goes bad, and I always tighten it down so I won't be thrown around as much… then I loosen it back out for the next person to use. If I'm up front I keep my eyes outside scanning for traffic.
I want our pilots to fly safely, but I know they are working hard and sometimes fatigue or pressure can tweak the odds a bit against us. So, I value a pilot with the testicular fortitude to say "no" when pressed into an uncomfortable position. I value a pilot who says "no" to flying through clouds, "no" to jump runs at dusk without proper lighting, "no" to flight in squirrelly winds, and "no" to long shifts without food or a break. I value a pilot who expects us to load the airplane properly and use our seatbelts. I figure a pilot who is paying attention to the things a layperson can see and evaluate is probably also paying attention to the really serious turbine-pilot stuff I won't ever understand.
We have really solid pilots at The Ranch, but they would probably be even better with more training. I'd be happier if I knew all of our pilots had annual simulator training focusing on engine failure at takeoff, with a full load, on a hot day, on a short runway. That's something that can not be easily practiced, yet it is a critical skill that might save my life someday.
If a single-engine airplane looses that engine, the pilot response is pretty simple. When a multi-engine airplane looses an engine asymmetrical thrust adds a challenging dimension to the flight. Having simulator experience with asymmetrical thrust gives a pilot a better understanding of the risk, and great package of skills to rely on when trouble strikes. Those skills can be honed in a real airplane at altitude, but nothing beats a simulator where the loss of an engine can be practiced with heat, humidity, gross weight, and a short field with trees and buildings looming large… all factors our pilots encounter at The Ranch on summer days. There are training programs that use full motion simulators for Twin Otters, and I'd be happy to pay higher jump fees if our professional jump pilots all spent time working on critical skill development in those sims, just like the professional pilots who fly the commuter airplanes I travel in.
I would also like to see better instrumentation on the flight deck. It would make me really happy to see our airplanes equipped with improved GPS displays, real IFR instruments that work, and a collision avoidance system that paints traffic so our pilots can find other airplanes more easily. Better instruments, when used properly, can lessen the workload at critical moments such as jump run, allowing our pilots more time to visually scan for traffic.
Those are just dreams, but 20 years ago having a big turbine airplane to jump from seven days a week was just a dream, and now we have them, so maybe the future holds more improvements.
One of the things I really like about The Ranch is that we seem to have a super maintenance program. Our maintenance team is quick to fix problems, and with so many airplanes on the ramp there shouldn't be any pressure to fly with a problem aircraft. I look at that as a big plus. Many turbine operators are struggling with heavy overhead costs and off-field maintenance by a contracted service. I fear they are sometimes pressured into flying aircraft that should be on the ground simply because it is too expensive or inconvenient to perform maintenance. Having a maintenance base at The Ranch is a really big deal, and we should all appreciate the work of the folks in the hanger.
So, don't worry so much about the kind of engine that is up front, or how many engines there are. Think instead about the pilot who is flying you to altitude. Remember that when you are feeling fatigue after your eighth jump, it's probably about load 25 for the pilot. Back him up. Check the fuel level. Check the flaps. Wear your seatbelt. Load fast and get out on one pass if practical, so that calculated fuel loads last as planned. Don't pressure the pilots to fly in clouds or when he/she seems uncomfortable. When the day is done find a pilot and say "thanks." When you have a chance, tell them that you don't think any flight or jump is worth risking an airplane accident… they already know that, but it helps them to hear it from the paying customers. If you see our pilots at CAVU, buy them a beer, or whatever.
Oh, hey, here's something else you can do… take a flying lesson or two. That's what I did after learning an idiot Cessna pilot flew me on a load with only one magneto. I didn't know what a magneto was, but when we landed another pilot on the load assured me it was a serious problem. After that, and the out of fuel at 2,000 feet incident, I figured if I'm going to be in airplanes I should probably learn something about them. That flight training knowledge has helped me to better understand the risks I take on every skydive.
For more information about jump operations and links to NTSB reports about jump plane accidents, see a site by jump pilot Chris Schindler at: http://www.diverdriver.com/index.htm
-Tom Buchanan S&TA