Forums: Skydiving: General Skydiving Discussions:
Legality of Paraglider jumps - WAS: Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012

 


zuziel  (D License)

May 1, 2012, 8:27 AM
Post #1 of 54 (2615 views)
Shortcut
Legality of Paraglider jumps - WAS: Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 Can't Post

I do not mean to split hairs, but it is not BASE if it is from any kind of aircraft.

Does that make it an illegal skydive if he was using BASE gear? (no reserve)


(This post was edited by PhreeZone on May 1, 2012, 10:28 AM)


Southern_Man  (C License)

May 1, 2012, 8:35 AM
Post #2 of 54 (2580 views)
Shortcut
Re: [zuziel] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I do not mean to split hairs, but it is not BASE if it is from any kind of aircraft.

Does that make it an illegal skydive if he was using BASE gear? (no reserve)

Yes, it is a violation of the FARs if he did not have a reserve.


5.samadhi

May 1, 2012, 8:41 AM
Post #3 of 54 (2564 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Southern_Man] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I do not mean to split hairs, but it is not BASE if it is from any kind of aircraft.

Does that make it an illegal skydive if he was using BASE gear? (no reserve)

Yes, it is a violation of the FARs if he did not have a reserve.
Incorrect. There is no rule regulating letting a tandem passenger on an ultralight glider (paraglider) going overboard. As long as its not over National Park land (its called aerial delivery then and is illegal).


Premier likestojump  (D License)

May 1, 2012, 8:48 AM
Post #4 of 54 (2546 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
I do not mean to split hairs, but it is not BASE if it is from any kind of aircraft.

Does that make it an illegal skydive if he was using BASE gear? (no reserve)

Yes, it is a violation of the FARs if he did not have a reserve.
Incorrect. There is no rule regulating letting a tandem passenger on an ultralight glider (paraglider) going overboard. As long as its not over National Park land (its called aerial delivery then and is illegal).

Tandem paragliders are governed by FAR103, thus all limitations of FAR91 apply.




Southern_Man  (C License)

May 1, 2012, 10:04 AM
Post #6 of 54 (2354 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Incorrect. There is no rule regulating letting a tandem passenger on an ultralight glider (paraglider) going overboard. As long as its not over National Park land (its called aerial delivery then and is illegal).
In reply to:
Tandem paragliders are governed by FAR103, thus all limitations of FAR91 apply.
well what are they going to do take away the FAA license required to pilot a tandem paraglider? Oh wait a second...
The FAA can fine people, such as skydivers and tandem paraglider pilors, who break the FARs, even though they have no certificate or license. It is rare but possible. They can also prohibit him from piloting as well. Again not very likely but possible.


5.samadhi

May 1, 2012, 10:22 AM
Post #7 of 54 (2303 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Southern_Man] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

well it still remains that tandem paragliders are not aircraft in the same way a cessna is an aircraft (according to the FAA) and thus not under regulation of FAR 91.

the very first section of 91:

Quote:
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and §§91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.

So, clearly ultralight vehicles are not governed under FAR 91 - they are governed under FAR 103. Here is applicability of FAR 103:
Quote:
This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that:

(a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant;

(b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;

(c) Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and

(d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or

(e) If powered:

(1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation;

(2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;

(3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and

(4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed.
Notice the above bolded section. This would seem to prohibit tandem paragliders from even being able to operate (let alone being able to drop a human off). However, the FAA has granted paragliders an exemption to be able to do tandem paragliding. Thus tandem paragliding is legal despite the applicability section of FAR 103 seeming to rule that it is not.

Now, FAR 103.9 is the last section we need to investigate to determine whether or not BASE jumping off a tandem is legal.Sec. 103.9 — Hazardous operations.
(a) No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a hazard to other persons or property.

(b) No person may allow an object to be dropped from an ultralight vehicle if such action creates a hazard to other persons or property.So, as long as the drop is not hazardous to other people or property (say over a residential area), then it seems to be legal to drop objects (people included). There is no mention about TSO'ed gear being attached to the dropped objects. Thus, the object being dropped can be attached to a harness manufactured by a BASE gear company with a BASE canopy being used to decelerate the drop before impact.

This is my understanding after studying the FAA regulations. I write all of this because I wanted to be clear I was not seeking to lay legal blame on the individuals involved when I asked whether the gear used was BASE gear or skydiving gear. I want to be clear that I think what they were doing was legal - and that my question was intended to seek any learning points from their actions so that more of us won't go in doing this type of jump.


Premier likestojump  (D License)

May 1, 2012, 10:37 AM
Post #8 of 54 (2278 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

Now that this moved into the whole FAR debate, I am loosing interest. But I think most people will agree that safety comes way ahead of legality. If one is doing a jump from 1700ft with WS and intending to do a low pull, then a BASE rig is many times safer than a skydiving rig. This is eerie similar to TJ Bartlett going in in 2008.

RIP Matt


wolfriverjoe  (A 50013)

May 1, 2012, 10:38 AM
Post #9 of 54 (2277 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

It gets complicated and is subject to interpretation.

But an utralight operated with a passenger doesn't fall under 103, because 103 requires a single occupant. So by default it falls under 91. And somewhere in there (not sure exactly where) 2-occupant untralight operations are restricted to "instruction purposes only." Which, kind of like tandem skydiving, allows for passengers to go up for a fun "instructional" flight.

And I don't think the FAA will go for an "instructional" flight where the student doesn't land with the aircraft.

And while "objects" can be dropped with reasoanable care (so as to not present a hazard), making an intentional parachute jump falls under part 105, which requires a TSO'd harness and reserve.


shropshire  (C License)

May 1, 2012, 10:41 AM
Post #10 of 54 (2266 views)
Shortcut
Re: [zuziel] Legality of Paraglider jumps - WAS: Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

um .... if you go gliding (in a sailplane) ... you may only be wearing a single canopy emergency parachute .... so flying as a passenger on a Paraglider with a single canopy emergency parachute would seem to be O.K ..... If you just happen to fall out ... whoops - thankfully you're wearing a parachute ... phew


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 1, 2012, 11:23 AM
Post #11 of 54 (2215 views)
Shortcut
Re: [likestojump] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

>But I think most people will agree that safety comes way ahead of legality.

Agreed.

>If one is doing a jump from 1700ft with WS and intending to do a low pull, then a BASE
>rig is many times safer than a skydiving rig. This is eerie similar to TJ Bartlett going in
>in 2008.

To me that's akin to "safety should come before legality. It's way safer to jump a tiny Velocity in a BASE rig in 25mph winds than a big main and reserve in a traditional rig. You'll back up!"

Perhaps true. But saying that you are doing that "for safety's sake" is pretty funny.


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

May 1, 2012, 12:13 PM
Post #12 of 54 (2152 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wolfriverjoe] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi joe,

I do not work for the FAA & I do not speak for the FAA.

Now, since we are all adding our $0.02 of thoughts to this:

Quote:
2-occupant untralight operations are restricted to "instruction purposes only."

This has always been my understanding.

Now, with this incident, my gut tells me that we just might get some new FAA rules in a few months/year or so. Crazy

JerryBaumchen


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
May 1, 2012, 12:31 PM
Post #13 of 54 (2126 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

Just to also mention that the USPPA is currently pushing to distance themselves from this activity and just in the last few weeks the pilot in this incident was asking for a petition to be signed by all skydivers and base jumpers to prevent the USPPA from expressly prohibiting this activity in its entirety for their rating holders and members.


CSpenceFLY  (D 25252)

May 1, 2012, 2:24 PM
Post #14 of 54 (2032 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hi joe,

I do not work for the FAA & I do not speak for the FAA.

Now, since we are all adding our $0.02 of thoughts to this:

Quote:
2-occupant untralight operations are restricted to "instruction purposes only."

This has always been my understanding.

Now, with this incident, my gut tells me that we just might get some new FAA rules in a few months/year or so. Crazy

JerryBaumchen


You beat me to it. That is my understanding also.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

May 1, 2012, 3:03 PM
Post #15 of 54 (1995 views)
Shortcut
Re: [shropshire] Legality of Paraglider jumps - WAS: Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
um .... if you go gliding (in a sailplane) ... you may only be wearing a single canopy emergency parachute .... so flying as a passenger on a Paraglider with a single canopy emergency parachute would seem to be O.K ..... If you just happen to fall out ... whoops - thankfully you're wearing a parachute ... phew

For your "falling out" theory to be legal, the rig in question would have to contain a certificated reserve packed by a rigger, sealed in accordance with FAR's, and have a data card. Additionally, the rig would need to be TSO'd as an emergency parachute system. I doubt the deceased was wearing one of those.

Nice try, though.


Ron

May 1, 2012, 3:30 PM
Post #16 of 54 (1974 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Incorrect. There is no rule regulating letting a tandem passenger on an ultralight glider (paraglider) going overboard.

Incorrect.

When you PLAN on jumping you have to meet FAR part 91 and 105.

91.307: (b) Except in an emergency, no pilot in command may allow, and no person may conduct, a parachute operation from an aircraft within the United States except in accordance with part 105 of this chapter.

105 states you need a two way radio and a notam. 105.43 states you need a main and a reserve.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/...0.1.3.17&idno=14

Quote:
So, clearly ultralight vehicles are not governed under FAR 91

There is no such thing as a two place "ultralight". Ultralight is SINGLE seat, less than 5 gallons gas, less than 254 pounds, top speed of 64MPH, max stall speed of 27.6 MPH.

Part 103: (a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant

Break any one of those and you now fall under part 91 and have to follow all of the FARS.

In addition, a light sport plane normally has a set of operational limitations.... Most of these operational limitations do not allow parachute operations.

There WAS an exemption that allowed two seat ultralights... That expired Jan 31, 2008. Now you need a light sport rating, or a pilots license to fly a two seat aircraft.

So light sport planes need to follow all of part 91.


(This post was edited by Ron on May 1, 2012, 3:51 PM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

May 1, 2012, 4:03 PM
Post #17 of 54 (1955 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

What part are you not understanding?
To me it's rather simple here.
What, am I missing something?

Besides that, an intentional bail from an ultralight with no TSO'd reserve?

Ultralights get an exception from Part 91

Ultralight is defined as a single occupant vehicle in Part 103. On top of that, nothing you posted in Part 130 even remotely suggests that it's OK to intentionally jump one.

What type of vehicle are we discussing here?
Think on it, it'll come to you.


I've done the research. Yours is incomplete.


CSpenceFLY  (D 25252)

May 1, 2012, 5:07 PM
Post #18 of 54 (1912 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

You do not have to file a NOTAM


Ron

May 1, 2012, 6:02 PM
Post #19 of 54 (1878 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CSpenceFLY] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
You do not have to file a NOTAM

If you say so...... 105.25 *seems* to say otherwise.

Quote:
§ 105.25   Parachute operations in designated airspace.

top
(a) No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from that aircraft—

(1) Over or within a restricted area or prohibited area unless the controlling agency of the area concerned has authorized that parachute operation;

(2) Within or into a Class A, B, C, D airspace area without, or in violation of the requirements of, an air traffic control authorization issued under this section;

(3) Except as provided in paragraph (c) and (d) of this section, within or into Class E or G airspace area unless the air traffic control facility having jurisdiction over the airspace at the first intended exit altitude is notified of the parachute operation no earlier than 24 hours before or no later than 1 hour before the parachute operation begins.

(b) Each request for a parachute operation authorization or notification required under this section must be submitted to the air traffic control facility having jurisdiction over the airspace at the first intended exit altitude and must include the information prescribed by §105.15(a) of this part.

(c) For the purposes of paragraph (a)(3) of this section, air traffic control facilities may accept a written notification from an organization that conducts parachute operations and lists the scheduled series of parachute operations to be conducted over a stated period of time not longer than 12 calendar months. The notification must contain the information prescribed by §105.15(a) of this part, identify the responsible persons associated with that parachute operation, and be submitted at least 15 days, but not more than 30 days, before the parachute operation begins. The FAA may revoke the acceptance of the notification for any failure of the organization conducting the parachute operations to comply with its requirements.


(d) Paragraph (a)(3) of this section does not apply to a parachute operation conducted by a member of an Armed Force within a restricted area that extends upward from the surface when that area is under the control of an Armed Force.

105.15
Quote:
§ 105.15   Information required and notice of cancellation or postponement of a parachute operation.

top
(a) Each person requesting an authorization under §§105.21(b) and 105.25(a)(2) of this part and each person submitting a notification under §105.25(a)(3) of this part must provide the following information (on an individual or group basis):

(1) The date and time the parachute operation will begin.

(2) The radius of the drop zone around the target expressed in nautical miles.

(3) The location of the center of the drop zone in relation to—

(i) The nearest VOR facility in terms of the VOR radial on which it is located and its distance in nautical miles from the VOR facility when that facility is 30 nautical miles or less from the drop zone target; or

(ii) the nearest airport, town, or city depicted on the appropriate Coast and Geodetic Survey World Aeronautical Chart or Sectional Aeronautical Chart, when the nearest VOR facility is more than 30 nautical miles from the drop zone target.

(4) Each altitude above mean sea level at which the aircraft will be operated when parachutists or objects exist the aircraft.

(5) The duration of the intended parachute operation.

(6) The name, address, and telephone number of the person who requests the authorization or gives notice of the parachute operation.

(7) The registration number of the aircraft to be used.

(8) The name of the air traffic control facility with jurisdiction of the airspace at the first intended exit altitude to be used for the parachute operation.

(b) Each holder of a certificate of authorization issued under §§105.21(b) and 105.25(b) of this part must present that certificate for inspection upon the request of the Administrator or any Federal, State, or local official.

(c) Each person requesting an authorization under §§105.21(b) and 105.25(a)(2) of this part and each person submitting a notice under §105.25(a)(3) of this part must promptly notify the air traffic control facility having jurisdiction over the affected airspace if the proposed or scheduled parachute operation is canceled or postponed.

It shows that a notification to the controlling agency has to be made not earlier than 24 hours before and no later than 1 hour before, or you can write them no more than 30 days but at least 15 days before operations are to begin.

Now you may not call notifying the controlling agency as a notam..... But I do know that in the three years I was on a military demo team we had to file paperwork for each demo and that was referred to as a notam. Also, after you file the paperwork and as a pilot call for a briefing.... You are given the parachute operations information and the FAA guy briefing tells you about it.

ETA:
http://www.faasafety.gov/..._normal.aspx?id=7720

Under 'DropZone', 2nd paragraph, 2nd and 3rd sentence:
Quote:
The jump pilot files a NOTAM at least one hour before the first drop. Skydiving operations with continuous activity may file a permanent NOTAM.


(This post was edited by Ron on May 1, 2012, 6:22 PM)


pchapman  (D 1014)

May 1, 2012, 6:16 PM
Post #20 of 54 (1868 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

To be more precise about the NOTAM thing:

We skydivers etc can notify ATC. That isn't a NOTAM.

Only the government guys can issue a NOTAM, as a warning to aviators about some airspace issue.

It is just that if there need to be special rules for some airspace due to a demo, or an ongoing DZ, then the gov't will issue a NOTAM. For a one-off jump that needs nothing other than basic ATC coordination, no NOTAM might be issued.

Note that the Class E and G stuff doesn't even need APPROVAL, just NOTIFICATION!

ATC needs to be aware of what you are doing, but they can't stop you.


Ron

May 1, 2012, 6:38 PM
Post #21 of 54 (1843 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
We skydivers etc can notify ATC. That isn't a NOTAM.

Only the government guys can issue a NOTAM, as a warning to aviators about some airspace issue.

Semantics... We HAVE to notify them, they might (and to the best of my knowledge always do) file a NOTAM.


5.samadhi

May 1, 2012, 8:59 PM
Post #22 of 54 (1786 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What part are you not understanding?
To me it's rather simple here.
What, am I missing something?

Besides that, an intentional bail from an ultralight with no TSO'd reserve?

Ultralights get an exception from Part 91

Ultralight is defined as a single occupant vehicle in Part 103. On top of that, nothing you posted in Part 130 even remotely suggests that it's OK to intentionally jump one.

What type of vehicle are we discussing here?
Think on it, it'll come to you.


I've done the research. Yours is incomplete.
Your post is cryptic and intriguing Smile would you like to explain???


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

May 2, 2012, 4:09 AM
Post #23 of 54 (1702 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
What part are you not understanding?
To me it's rather simple here.
What, am I missing something?

Besides that, an intentional bail from an ultralight with no TSO'd reserve?

Ultralights get an exception from Part 91

Ultralight is defined as a single occupant vehicle in Part 103. On top of that, nothing you posted in Part 130 even remotely suggests that it's OK to intentionally jump one.

What type of vehicle are we discussing here?
Think on it, it'll come to you.


I've done the research. Yours is incomplete.
Your post is cryptic and intriguing Smile would you like to explain???
OK...more bluntly, in simple terms.
-Ultralight is defined as a single occupant vehicle
You are talking about a two seater, ergo, technically speaking, it's not an ultralight so the ultralight exception in Part 91 does not apply.

-a parachute jump from an aircraft requires a TSO'd reserve.

That's my understanding. You can safely call me stupid if you can show where I'm missing something.

(BTW, I had a typo when I wrote "Part 130".)


(This post was edited by popsjumper on May 2, 2012, 4:09 AM)


DBCOOPER  (D 24112)

May 2, 2012, 5:18 AM
Post #24 of 54 (1672 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
We skydivers etc can notify ATC. That isn't a NOTAM.

Only the government guys can issue a NOTAM, as a warning to aviators about some airspace issue.

Semantics... We HAVE to notify them, they might (and to the best of my knowledge always do) file a NOTAM.

When ever your doing a real demo (one that requires form 7711-2 such as over a congested area or open air assembly of people) the certificate of authorization that comes back from the faa will typically require the filing of a notam. That is the only time you are required to file one.


CSpenceFLY  (D 25252)

May 2, 2012, 5:27 AM
Post #25 of 54 (1666 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

I must be missing something. Could you highlight where it says either NOTAM or Notice to Airman?


As a side note, Nothing in the Federal Air Regulations is clear.


(This post was edited by CSpenceFLY on May 2, 2012, 5:55 AM)


Ron

May 2, 2012, 6:16 AM
Post #26 of 54 (1496 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CSpenceFLY] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Quote:
I must be missing something. Could you highlight where it says either NOTAM or Notice to Airman?

http://www.faasafety.gov/..._normal.aspx?id=7720

Under 'DropZone', 2nd paragraph, 2nd and 3rd sentence:
Quote:
The jump pilot files a NOTAM at least one hour before the first drop. Skydiving operations with continuous activity may file a permanent NOTAM.

That is from the FAA's website.

Quote:
As a side note, Nothing in the Federal Air Regulations is clear

And this is also true. Do you know they keep it vague on purpose? There have been court rulings on what is considered a congested airspace. Read Folk v Sturgell.

Quote:
During the hearing, the FAA inspector who investigated the allegations regarding the airmen testified that "if an operator conducts an application in an area the FAA might later determine to be a congested area, the operator ignores that potentiality at his or her peril."

When the airmen requested a definition of "congested area," the inspector told them there was no definition

Unfortunately, the Court's decision doesn't shed much light on the "congested area" issue nor does it provide any meaningful clarification. Because this type of case is decided on a "case by case" basis, I think the Court's decision relied heavily on the ALJ's and NTSB's factual findings. As a result, we still do not have a clear definition of what constitutes a "congested area."

The due process argument was an interesting defense. If the airmen hadn't been warned by the inspector or if the airmen had submitted a congested area plan but received not response from the FAA, perhaps then the Court may have been more sympathetic. On a positive note, it appears this argument could still be successful given the right set of facts.

In the meantime, make sure you are familiar with area over which you fly if you want to push the limits of 91.119 and remember that the FAA, NTSB and the Court will judge your flight using 20/20 hindsight.

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/082155.U.pdf

But several people have stated that a NOTAM is not required, and I can't find the word NOTAM in 105. The best I can do is show the FAA website that mentions a NOTAM. So, I could be wrong.


normiss  (D 28356)

May 2, 2012, 6:28 AM
Post #27 of 54 (1491 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

I've done a number of demos where the local FSDO and flight ops specifically stated no NOTAM required as it was in their area and jurisdiction.


CSpenceFLY  (D 25252)

May 2, 2012, 7:04 AM
Post #28 of 54 (1470 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

That link doesn't work and I can't find what you quoted. Guessing it's not a FAR


5.samadhi

May 2, 2012, 7:17 AM
Post #29 of 54 (1466 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
What part are you not understanding?
To me it's rather simple here.
What, am I missing something?

Besides that, an intentional bail from an ultralight with no TSO'd reserve?

Ultralights get an exception from Part 91

Ultralight is defined as a single occupant vehicle in Part 103. On top of that, nothing you posted in Part 130 even remotely suggests that it's OK to intentionally jump one.

What type of vehicle are we discussing here?
Think on it, it'll come to you.


I've done the research. Yours is incomplete.
Your post is cryptic and intriguing Smile would you like to explain???
OK...more bluntly, in simple terms.
-Ultralight is defined as a single occupant vehicle
You are talking about a two seater, ergo, technically speaking, it's not an ultralight so the ultralight exception in Part 91 does not apply.

-a parachute jump from an aircraft requires a TSO'd reserve.

That's my understanding. You can safely call me stupid if you can show where I'm missing something.

(BTW, I had a typo when I wrote "Part 130".)
A powered paraglider is NOT an aircraft in the way that part 91 understands aircraft (see the applicability section of part 91 to understand further).

I would never call you stupid, whether it was safe or not. Smile


normiss  (D 28356)

May 2, 2012, 7:55 AM
Post #30 of 54 (1443 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

You are incorrect sir.


Ron

May 2, 2012, 7:56 AM
Post #31 of 54 (1442 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CSpenceFLY] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
That link doesn't work and I can't find what you quoted. Guessing it's not a FAR

Try this one:

http://www.faasafety.gov/..._normal.aspx?id=7720

Quote:
Each day before the jumping begins, the drop zone operator contacts the Flight Service Station for the latest weather forecast and winds aloft forecast. The jump pilot files a NOTAM at least one hour prior to the first drop. Skydiving operations with continuous activity may file a permanent NOTAM.

It is not an FAR, but it is from the FAA library.


Ron

May 2, 2012, 8:00 AM
Post #32 of 54 (1436 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I've done a number of demos where the local FSDO and flight ops specifically stated no NOTAM required as it was in their area and jurisdiction.

Was it B, C, or D airspace? If so then the ATC will alert and divert aircraft for you and no NOTAM would need to be given.


Rick  (D 28557)

May 2, 2012, 8:05 AM
Post #33 of 54 (1435 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I've done a number of demos where the local FSDO and flight ops specifically stated no NOTAM required as it was in their area and jurisdiction.


Lat month I called the FISDO in Tampa to file a NOTAM for a demo jump. I was told by this office since they are the ones that approved the Application for Certificate of Waiver or Authorization they already had the NOTAM filed.

I have always called in for a NOTAM when demo jumping. It does not take long to and if it covers your ass why not?


normiss  (D 28356)

May 2, 2012, 8:20 AM
Post #34 of 54 (1424 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Rick] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

Agreed, I always have too - but that is a response we seem to get sometimes.


Ron

May 2, 2012, 8:22 AM
Post #35 of 54 (1425 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
A powered paraglider is NOT an aircraft in the way that part 91 understands aircraft (see the applicability section of part 91 to understand further).

If it has two seats and gear, it is not under part 103.

Quote:
http://www.usua.org/Rules/ruleandregs.htm

Flying Under Ultralight Rules (FAR Part 103)

Recreational flight limited to single seaters weighing less than 254 lbs
Any category, class or type of vehicle permitted (i.e. airplane, trike, powered parachute)

Flying Under General Aviation Rules (Part 61 & 91)

Recreational flight in single seaters and two-seaters.
Passenger carrying in two-seaters.
Some category, class and type aircraft not allowed depending on certification option.

Again, pretty simple:
Single seat = Part 103
Dual seat = Part 61 and 91.

You keep mentioning a waiver..... And if you are talking about Exemption No. 6080.... Your argument falls flat however because....

1. The sport pilot rule changed that. The date was Jan. 31, 2008.

2. If you were trying to claim 6080 was still allowed... You are still screwed:

Quote:
In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 313(a) and 601(C) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, delegated to me by the Administrator (14 CFR 11.53), Aero Sports Connection, Inc., is granted an exemption from § 103.1(a) and (e)(1) through (e)(4) of the Federal Aviation Regulations to the extent necessary to permit individuals authorized by Aero Sports Connection, Inc., to give instruction in powered ultralights that have a maximum empty weight of not more than 496 pounds, have a maximum fuel capacity of not more than 10 U.S. gallons, are not capable of more than 75 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight, and have a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 32 knots calibrated airspeed. The exemption is subject to the following conditions and limitations:

1. Each operation must comply with all sections of part 103 of the FAR except § 103.1(a) and (e)(l) through (e)(4).

2. Each ultralight operated under this exemption shall permanently display the following placard: "To be used for instruction only." This placard must have letters at least 1/2 inch in height and be displayed in a location easily visible and legible to all persons entering the ultralight vehicle.

3. All flights carrying two occupants shall be used for instruction only, and one occupant must be either an FAA certificated flight instructor or a person recognized by Aero Sports Connection, Inc., as qualified to give instruction in an ultralight vehicle.

4. All single-occupant flights are restricted to those associated with instruction, such as ferrying the vehicles between locations where instruction will be conducted, and must be operated by a person authorized in Condition No. 3 of this exemption to give flight instruction.

ETA: There is a waiver for foot launched tandems (2 actually)...I didn't know of this, but it does not apply in this case anyway.

USPPA #9751A: "This exemption applies only to flights for the purpose of giving instruction in foot-launched, two-place powered paragliders."

ASC #9785A: "This exemption applies only to flights for the purpose of giving instruction in foot-launched, two-place powered and unpowered paragliders"

So, if you are trying to claim the exemption.... This was not a flight for instruction and therefore was against the exemption, and therefore against 103.

You are simply wrong.


(This post was edited by Ron on May 2, 2012, 8:57 AM)


f1freak  (C License)

May 2, 2012, 8:39 AM
Post #36 of 54 (1417 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

They do have a waiver/exemption if foot launched.
http://www.usppa.org/...ragliding_Tandem.htm


Ron

May 2, 2012, 8:50 AM
Post #37 of 54 (1404 views)
Shortcut
Re: [f1freak] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
They do have a waiver/exemption if foot launched.
http://www.usppa.org/...ragliding_Tandem.htm

Interesting... Were they foot launched? I'll admit I didn't know of this exemption.

Even then, they would still be in violation of the exemption.

USPPA #9751A: "This exemption applies only to flights for the purpose of giving instruction in foot-launched, two-place powered paragliders."

ASC #9785A: "This exemption applies only to flights for the purpose of giving
instruction
in foot-launched, two-place powered and unpowered paragliders"

So if this vehicle had wheels, they are in violation of 105. If this was a foot launch, then they are in violation of 105 and 103.


5.samadhi

May 2, 2012, 8:55 AM
Post #38 of 54 (1401 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

who is to say that they were not instructing? The jump could have just been an additional bonus for the student to enjoy after learning any lessons the instructor had to teach. These guys do have a paragliding school after all so its not a stretch that they could claim their flights are instructional.

And yes the flight must be foot launched to count under the exemption.

Normiss, am I still incorrect? Crazy


Ron

May 2, 2012, 9:12 AM
Post #39 of 54 (1388 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
who is to say that they were not instructing? The jump could have just been an additional bonus for the student to enjoy after learning any lessons the instructor had to teach. These guys do have a paragliding school after all so its not a stretch that they could claim their flights are instructional.

Sell it to the FAA, I am not buying. BTW, I have had to deal with the FAA for work AND because they tried to bust me for a violation.... Your claim is going to fall flat fast.

Did the 'student' have a logbook? Did the 'student' have more than this one flight? What was the lesson plan for this flight? How long was the "instruction" portion of the flight? So you are going to try and claim that this 'student' took an 'instructional' flight with the intent of not landing in the harness?

Then you are going to have to try and claim that it was not in violation of the exemption. BOTH owners of the exemptions are not going to have your back.

Like I said, I understand what you are trying to do.... But your chances of success are zero to none at pulling it off.

Letting the guy jump is in clear violation of the exemption. The exemption is for instruction and letting the guy jump is not "instruction".

I hope they don't fry the guy, and I personally think that we should be allowed to pull stunts like this.... But I am not the FAA, and the FAA has no sense of humor especially when there is a fatality on non-tso'd, non-105 compliant gear.

BTW, mentioning this was a foot launch would have helped immensely at the beginning.


hackish  (No License)

May 2, 2012, 9:51 AM
Post #40 of 54 (1365 views)
Shortcut
Re: Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

Somewhere in all of that jungle there is also wording to the effect of making an "intentional" parachute jump requires the TSO & reserve. This excludes the argument that a PEP rig would be legal to jump.

It looks and quacks like a duck so you're going to have trouble convincing the FAA that it is something else. The pilot could claim that the guy was uncomfortable with ultralights so he allowed him to wear the parachute, then without authorization he jumped out. That would be a 1 time deal. It only takes one report of a prior jump to sink that ship too.

-Michael


pchapman  (D 1014)

May 2, 2012, 10:32 AM
Post #41 of 54 (1348 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

Great contributions here, Ron.

You mentioned a couple exemptions, but I found yet another: The USHPA has #4721L, current this year. This one applies to 2 place paragliders, but only unpowered flight. That's not the case in this incident but shows a case where the FAA does allow flights other than for instruction.

Quote:
[This] exemption to § 103.1(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows USHPA to operate unpowered ultralight vehicles (hang gliders) weighing less than 155 pounds, with another occupant, for the purpose of sport, training, or recreation.

With that exemption, two paragliding pilots can go up and have fun. They both need ratings and one needs the appropriate rating to fly a tandem.

As for how much "instruction" needs to be done, that's another area for argument. I know some powered trike operations in Hawaii (Light Sport I guess?) got into FAA trouble for their tourist flights, but I don't know if it was the way they presented things, or the whole activity that was at issue. And was the old skydiving tandem exemption also for "instruction" only, even when most of the jumping was really for fun?


Ron

May 2, 2012, 11:47 AM
Post #42 of 54 (1326 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
You mentioned a couple exemptions, but I found yet another: The USHPA has #4721L, current this year. This one applies to 2 place paragliders, but only unpowered flight. That's not the case in this incident but shows a case where the FAA does allow flights other than for instruction.

Well it gets thicker doesn't it?

Quote:
With that exemption, two paragliding pilots can go up and have fun. They both need ratings and one needs the appropriate rating to fly a tandem.

Yes, but like you said, it would not apply in this case since the PPC was powered. But it does show that the FAR's are pretty tangled.

Quote:
As for how much "instruction" needs to be done, that's another area for argument. I know some powered trike operations in Hawaii (Light Sport I guess?) got into FAA trouble for their tourist flights, but I don't know if it was the way they presented things, or the whole activity that was at issue. And was the old skydiving tandem exemption also for "instruction" only, even when most of the jumping was really for fun?

Yes, the original tandem program was for instruction only. There was supposed to be a list of things you had to comply with, I do not recall all of them anymore. They did have things like providing an altimeter, discussing freefall position, canopy flight ect. Most of that was covered by a briefing.... I was told it is also why back in the day most students ended up with a logbook.

Many schools simply ignored it, others did things like put an alti on every student harness. It was changed 8(?) years ago.

For the record, I don't really see a problem with giving "joy rides" or letting people jump out of or off of anything as long as they do not pose a danger to anyone else.... But again, I am not the FAA.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

May 2, 2012, 6:18 PM
Post #43 of 54 (1240 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
who is to say that they were not instructing? The jump could have just been an additional bonus for the student to enjoy after learning any lessons the instructor had to teach. These guys do have a paragliding school after all so its not a stretch that they could claim their flights are instructional.

And yes the flight must be foot launched to count under the exemption.

Normiss, am I still incorrect? Crazy

You sound like a 15-year old who "was just holding it for a friend". Split hairs all you want. Anything that flies that is capable of carrying a "passenger" will be regulated accordingly.

And your post still doesn't address a jump outside the skydiving regs. Intentional jumps require TSO'd gear with an in-date reserve blah, blah, blah.

Get back on the porch before you get bit, puppy.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 2, 2012, 8:32 PM
Post #44 of 54 (1206 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

>who is to say that they were not instructing? The jump could have just
>been an additional bonus for the student to enjoy after learning any
>lessons the instructor had to teach.

The FAA has decades of dealing with people attempting to cheat. It is unlikely that a clever line of BS will do anything other than make the tandem pilot's fate worse.


5.samadhi

May 3, 2012, 6:35 AM
Post #45 of 54 (1141 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree Bill. For me it has been a fun thought experiment delving through the FARs.

Chuck, I agree there is more points to counter to make a solid case. At least we have sketched out the beginning of a legal argument for anybody in trouble here though. I do indeed hope that the FAA does not try to pursue this legally against the gentlemen involved.

If I were going to do a jump like this then I would go somewhere isolated and remote and I would not be participating in the jump if it was a for-profit operation. Hell at that point might as well be going off a cliff.


RiggerLee

May 3, 2012, 10:41 AM
Post #46 of 54 (1098 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

 
What if it was registered as a Light Sport? A lot of this has been done from two seat trikes. I was once told that the FAA had declared that skydiving was an inharently comercial activity. I know a sport pilot can not fly for compensation but as I understand it a private pilot or in this case a comercial pilot can fly a Light Sport plane under the pribliges of his certificat. Is there any thing baring a comercial pilot from flying jumpers in a Light sport or is that simple a restiction against comercial flight by a Sport pilot?

Lee


godfrog

May 3, 2012, 11:48 AM
Post #47 of 54 (1079 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RiggerLee] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

Look into the FAR's for the type certification of the aircraft and limitations of usage, I.E. Experimental, Restricted, Standard......


Ron

May 4, 2012, 6:18 PM
Post #48 of 54 (987 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RiggerLee] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What if it was registered as a Light Sport? A lot of this has been done from two seat trikes. I was once told that the FAA had declared that skydiving was an inharently comercial activity. I know a sport pilot can not fly for compensation but as I understand it a private pilot or in this case a comercial pilot can fly a Light Sport plane under the pribliges of his certificat. Is there any thing baring a comercial pilot from flying jumpers in a Light sport or is that simple a restiction against comercial flight by a Sport pilot?

Lee

If the plane was registered as a light sport, then three things have to be taken into consideration:

1. The rating of the pilot. If the jumper was paying, or the pilot recieved compensation, then the pilot needs a commercial rating. The FAA does not play with this... To go so far as me as a private pilot cannot even get free gas to fly for a charity.

But it is perfectly legal for me to take you up as a private pilot as long as I pay my 'fair share' of the cost of the flight.

2. The certification of the plane. Without going into great detail, there are two basic types of Light Sport planes; Factory built and Amateur built. You can only do commercial ops in a factory built. But if they are not paying, this does not apply.

3. The operational limitations of the aircraft. For example, my plane spells it out specifically that I cannot tow a glider, banner, or use it as a jump plane.

So, you could not jump my plane period... Now, I could petition the FAA for a new letter and they might give it to me.... Or not.

So if this was a light sport, the operational limitations letter would have to be looked at to see if it is allowed or prohibited.

Then the pay/free aspect would have to be looked at. Depending on that would depend on what type of aircraft catagory and then what type of pilot rating


lawrocket  (Student)

May 8, 2012, 4:17 PM
Post #49 of 54 (830 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CSpenceFLY] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I must be missing something. Could you highlight where it says either NOTAM or Notice to Airman?


As a side note, Nothing in the Federal Air Regulations is clear.

Which is why it's so easy to have them all over you. If something is vague, it's up to you (and several grand of costs and fees) to prove that the regulations were vague and ambiguous.

Hence, I have two standard bits of advice to people:
(1) If you're going to break laws, only break one at a time (i.e., if you are carrying illegal contraband, don't speed. If you are speeding, don't carry illegal contraband.); and
(2) If you ask yourself, "Can I get in trouble for this?" then stop, because you can.


Beery

May 9, 2012, 1:52 PM
Post #50 of 54 (764 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

I see several things in this whole thread that needs to be cleared up.

USPPA as previously posted has the USPPA #9751A exemption permitting the purpose of flight for giving instruction. ASC has exemption #9785A for the same deal.

Nowhere, have I seen it mentioned the pilot had received a tandem rating from either ASC or USPPA to operate under the exemption. I was able to research the membership directory for USPPA as well as flightschools, and the pilot's name was not present. I was not able to review ASC's membership directory if one even exist.

Secondly, USHPA has distanced itself from the sport of Powered Paraglding, thus #4721L is not valid and has no place in this discussion since it was a powered flight, not an unpowered flight.

Lastly, a foot launch powered paraglider is unable to be registered as a Light Sport aircraft. Thus, any considerations for that avenue are off the table. Foot launch paramotors are regulated under FAR 103 in their entirety here in the US. No other FAA regulations governing their use are applicable.

It boils down to this.

Does the pilot have an ASC exemption to operate as a tandem pilot? I don't know!

Was this an instructional flight? Highly unlikely after reading the deceased's and pilot's biographies at http://www.theflystyle.com/...flystyle-family.html.

So, you have someone that took someone up for a non-instructional flight that may or may not have had an instructional tandem rating outside of any potentially covered FAA exemptions governing the sport.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn some kind of manslaughter or perhaps more serious charges are filed. Whether the DA moves first, or whether the FAA issues decisions first is up in the air. I would suspect the DA will wait to hear the FAA's response so they can unravel all the regulations and hurdles.


RiggerLee

May 9, 2012, 5:16 PM
Post #51 of 54 (412 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Beery] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

 
I seem to recall that there was an effort to file a charge of manslauter in one of the lake paule cases but I can't recall the out come. Who remembers the outcome of the Dennis McGlen case? Any other presedents?

Are there any leagle means to opperate foot launched powered paragliders? I've seen pictures of them. A guy tryed to sell me one here in Texas. Did these things just fall through the cracks?

Lee


Beery

May 10, 2012, 9:13 AM
Post #52 of 54 (362 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RiggerLee] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

Not sure what your question means. Yes, it is legal to foot launch a powered paraglider. I haven't seen a foot launch paraglider yet that was illegal. About the only way I can imagine one flying a PPG that would be illegal is if someone was carrying greater than 5 gallons of fuel.

Now, it is against the regulations for most people to tandem launch a foot launch powered paraglider UNLESS you have met the requirements and been signed off by the USPPA or ASC as a tandem foot launch pilot/instructor and it is for instruction. If you don't hold the credentials and paperwork, then tandem launches would be illegal.

I've got a feeling you meant something else by your statement, but the answers above pertain to the text you wrote.

Beery

In reply to:

Are there any leagle means to opperate foot launched powered paragliders? I've seen pictures of them. A guy tryed to sell me one here in Texas. Did these things just fall through the cracks?

Lee


RiggerLee

May 10, 2012, 2:14 PM
Post #53 of 54 (313 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Beery] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Your right I wasn't very clear. What I was trying to ask about is the FAA legality. How would a foot launched tandom powered paraglider be treated by the FAA.

Maybe I'm miss understanding but I thought that the wavers held by the paraglideing/hanggliding assoceations to part 103 were strictly for unpowered flight. That they permited tandom foot launched unpowerd flight for instruction and in one case recreation.

I was under the impression that all of the wavers for powered 103 ultralights were expired and that no more tandom flight was permited under a waver to part 103.

Am I understanding this correctly that there was a cut off date at which a two seat ultra light could be registered as a Light Sport and that that date was long past? What happions to one not yet registered? Can it fall under the Experamental/self built Light Sport?

If I'm understanding this correctly foot launched powered paragliders are not being registered as Light Sport planes.

Correct me if I'm wrong but only factory built/certified light sport planes can be used of comercal/instructional use. And of the "Ultralights" only quick silver has managed to jump through all the hoops for that. I remember lissening to all the Ultralight guys bitching about it haveing been turned into general aviation. What is the big hold up? The expence of engion certification?

So my question is what exactly are they? Have I missed some thing? How and under what part of the FAR's or under what waiver can they be opperated?

Lee


(This post was edited by RiggerLee on May 10, 2012, 2:22 PM)


Beery

May 11, 2012, 10:43 AM
Post #54 of 54 (266 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RiggerLee] Fatality - Tillamook, OR - 28 April 2012 [In reply to] Can't Post

When Ligh Sport aircraft came out, the tandem waivers expired.

USPPPA and ASC both filed, and obtained after that expiratin date, new waivers permitting foot launch tandems with certain criteria.

Foot launch powered paragliders are not, and can not be registered as Light Sport Planes. They do not meet the criteria defined by the FAA. Thus, they fall under FAR 103.

Light Sport and foot launch powered paragliders (PPG's) fall under two separate deals. PPG's are under FAR 103 just like paragliding and hangliding.

Beery

In reply to:
Maybe I'm miss understanding but I thought that the wavers held by the paraglideing/hanggliding assoceations to part 103 were strictly for unpowered flight. That they permited tandom foot launched unpowerd flight for instruction and in one case recreation.

I was under the impression that all of the wavers for powered 103 ultralights were expired and that no more tandom flight was permited under a waver to part 103.

Am I understanding this correctly that there was a cut off date at which a two seat ultra light could be registered as a Light Sport and that that date was long past? What happions to one not yet registered? Can it fall under the Experamental/self built Light Sport?

If I'm understanding this correctly foot launched powered paragliders are not being registered as Light Sport planes.

Correct me if I'm wrong but only factory built/certified light sport planes can be used of comercal/instructional use. And of the "Ultralights" only quick silver has managed to jump through all the hoops for that. I remember lissening to all the Ultralight guys bitching about it haveing been turned into general aviation. What is the big hold up? The expence of engion certification?

So my question is what exactly are they? Have I missed some thing? How and under what part of the FAR's or under what waiver can they be opperated?

Lee



Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

 


Search for (options)