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

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Ron

May 2, 2012, 6:16 AM
Post #26 of 54 (1479 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 (1474 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 (1453 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 (1449 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 (1426 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 (1425 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 (1419 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 (1418 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 (1407 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 (1408 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 (1400 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 (1387 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 (1384 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 (1371 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 (1348 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 (1331 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 (1309 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 (1223 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 (1189 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 (1124 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 (1081 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 (1062 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 (970 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 (813 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 (747 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.


First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

 


Search for (options)