What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
(-23) Investigation reveals that there were no regulatory violations or procedural errors that would have been causal to this incident. This was a tandem parachute jump conducted in compliance with 14 CFR part 105.45. The parachutist in command/instructor was found to be fully qualified and authorized to perform his duties. The equipment used was found to be in serviceable condition with the reserve parachute meeting the required TSO C23. The pilot in command was found to be current and qualified and an aircraft records review found no discrepancies. This incident was caused by the student jumper interfering with the instructor causing the reserve parachute to be deployed prior to the release of the fouled main parachute, the reserve parachute was subsequently entangled with the main parachute.
As the FAA filed it
(-23) INVESTIGATION REVEALS THAT THERE WERE NO REGULATORY VIOLATIONS OR PROCEDURAL ERRORS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CAUSAL TO THIS INCIDENT. THIS WAS A TANDEM PARACHUTE JUMP CONDUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH 14 CFR PART 105.45. THE PARACHUTIST IN COMMAND/INSTRUCTOR WAS FOUND TO BE FULLY QUALIFIED AND AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM HIS DUTIES. THE EQUIPMENT USED WAS FOUND TO BE IN SERVICEABLE CONDITION WITH THE RESERVE PARACHUTE MEETING THE REQUIRED TSO C23. THE PILOT IN COMMAND WAS FOUND TO BE CURRENT AND QUALIFIED AND AN AIRCRAFT RECORDS REVIEW FOUND NO DISCREPANCIES. THIS INCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY THE STUDENT JUMPER INTERFERING WITH THE INSTRUCTOR CAUSING THE RESERVE PARACHUTE TO BE DEPLOYED PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE FOULED MAIN PARACHUTE, THE RESERVE PARACHUTE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ENTANGLED WITH THE MAIN PARACHUTE.
Other reports on N5358B · 2
Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.