Should reserves (2-parachute system) be mandatory in skydiving?

[skez 0]

australian rules im pretty sure i read something like that... nearly positive...and yeh u can use single parachute systems with a belly mount reserve....but this whole idea of jumping base rig with no reserve under normal skydiving rules at your local dz just isnt gonna happen...skydiving is all about rules and regulations

FTMC

[mark 102]

JWest

******It's not mandatory, everyone just thinks it is. Look at my previous posts.

Bob Pierotti should have had you as his lawyer.

Mark

The form search is down and google didn't do me much good. All I could find is that he lost is rating for a year do to disciplinary action in 2004. I assume he piloted/jumped out of a plane with a base rig? I understand that the SIM and FAR have been rewritten since then. Perhaps the new verbiage could of [sic] helped him out a bit.

Yeah, right. Perhaps you could find out when the regulation was changed and how often the FAA has cited the SIM in legal proceedings.

Mark

[pchapman 261]

So the conclusion we have so far is:

JWest is correct.
The FAA screwed up their wording so that single harness, single canopy systems are not excluded from jumping.

Just that IF you have two parachutes, one has to be an approved reserve and the harness has to be certified.

FAA advisory material may say differently. And maybe some other FAR can be found that prohibits it, but nobody here has found such language yet. And maybe you'd have a tough time with lawyers.

Looks like a golden opportunity to go jump single canopy systems, although they couldn't be done as part of USPA jump operations.

What are Lodi's policies?

[mark 102]

pchapman

So the conclusion we have so far is:

JWest is correct.

JWest has certainly concluded he is correct. However, the issue has been litigated and the FAA won. Skydivers and pilots would be ill-served to follow JWest's advice.

Mark

[strife 0]

Hellis

***also i could be wrong but im pretty sure one of the rules state if u dont have an aad u need an rsl...and vice versa not sure how u would go with that on a base rig

Is that aussie rules or US rules?

About RSL, look up stevens lanyard in poynters.
It connects your main with your belly reserv

APF
7.1.6 AAD and RSL Requirements Safety
(a) All freefall descents made by a parachutist who hold up to and including a Certificate Class C must be
made with equipment fitted with an operational AAD.
(b) All freefall descents made by parachutists who hold a Certificate Class D must be made with equipment
fitted with either:
(i) A functional RSL; or
(ii) An operational AAD.
(c) The DZSO may authorise in writing an exception to this regulation for specified descents.

[mxk 1]

pchapman

JWest is correct.
The FAA screwed up their wording so that single harness, single canopy systems are not excluded from jumping.

I don't think so. First, if you only have one parachute, then it's also your emergency chute and 91.307(a) kicks in: "No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it is an approved type and has been packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger."

Second, part 105 has specific definitions of a "parachute operation" and "parachutist," which is "a person who intends to exit an aircraft while in flight using a single-harness, dual parachute system to descend to the surface." If you don't meet that definition, then you're not doing a part 105 jump, which puts you in violation of 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."

But hey, if you can find a pilot who is willing to risk his certificate on this supposed loophole, have fun

[pchapman 261]

As I said, so far we had JWest find a loophole, but warned:

Quote

And maybe some other FAR can be found that prohibits it, but nobody here has found such language yet.

Voila, what you dug up mxk is perfect -- those neatly cover the loophole in the FAA's language.

One does often have to work through multiple rules to find the full meaning of the rules.

What you found also provides an important link between the "it's just advisory" AC105 and an FAR that specifically refers to it and gives it more weight.

Edit:
So where we are now at, is that whether or not the FAA screwed up when rewriting the rules to include tandems, or wrote it in a misleading way that might seem to allow single parachute operations, there is no loophole in the rules as a whole. The normal dual parachute stuff continues to apply.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Mark,

Quote

the issue has been litigated and the FAA won

I am not familiar with the incident you are referring to.

Did it actually go to court or was it a decision/ruling merely by the FAA?

Just wondering,

Jerry Baumchen

PS) To me 'litigated' means something taking place in a courtroom.

[riggerrob 558]

CARs insist that all jumps be made in accordance with DZ Ops manuals and CSPA ( or similar national organization like CAPS) BSRs. The difference between CSPA BSRs, CAPS BSRs and USPA BSRs the the thickness of a photo-copy.
Similarly, the difference between CARs and FARs is the thickness of a photo-copy.
Canadian DZ ops manuals loop back to CSPA BSRs, which loop back to CARS, so that any time you disobey a BSR, you are also disobeying a CAR.
TC likes BSRs because as long as BSRs keep fatality rates low and keep skydivers from interfering with airline traffic, TC does not have to bother with the finer details of skydiving.
Remember that CARs were written by Vogons. CARs start with "All flying activity is prohibited in Canada without express written permission of the Crown ....."
So if a practice (e.g. single-parachute jumps) is not mentioned in CARs, it is automatically forbidden. If it is not mentioned in CARs, it is almost impossible to obtain written permission from TC. Without written permission from TC, single-parachute jumps are illegal in Canadian airspace.

[Bluhdow 31]

Whatever dude. I honestly don't care to educate you, and I'm not reading that giant post. Peace out.

I do like all the legal dissection of the rules taking place here though! I'm just waiting for my green light to start jumping my (highly reliable) BASE gear out of local aircraft! (Non-USPA of course, so no worries Rich!)

Apex BASE
#1816

[pchapman 261]

riggerrob

CARs insist that all jumps be made in accordance with DZ Ops manuals and CSPA ( or similar national organization like CAPS) BSRs.

Really?
If you can help find the relevant parts that would be interesting.

I've been looking at CARs for years but it is easy to miss stuff despite being able to do electronic searches.

I thought you could conduct private parachuting operations without involvement of CSPA etc. There are just a few federal rules on actual parachute jumps. So if you fly with a buddy in their plane and don't pay them and take the door off and that's in the aircraft manual and you jump into a buddy's farm field.... as long as you meet the airspace rules there's very little else limiting you.

And you know that when something isn't in the rules, it can be permitted:

Parachutes for pilots? There are almost no federal rules on them, which surprises many. You can go fly aerobatics with something packed 20 years ago. (Although maybe not in a contest because the organization involved won't allow it). Not so in the US. Building skydiver rigs? No TSO requirements, nothing in the rules -- but it is permitted to build them and jump them. As has been done by various Canadian skydiving companies over the years.

Now it is possible that there are things not to be found in the regular rules that still limit jumps.

Maybe you know more about that. Such as, will TC actually provide an operating certificate that doesn't require adherence to one of the established parachuting organizations? Or would that only apply if applying for a parachuting school? The CARs in sections on part 702 Aerial Work, which is the one that includes skydiving, lists things that need to be be in your operations manual, but not the details.

For example Standard 722 point something says that for a commercial parachuting operation, the operations manual must include "(j) parachute jumping procedures for day and night VFR operations." Doesn't say whose rules though, as long as you have some.

Now if you can tell me from experience that TC would never approve a manual that doesn't mention CSPA / USPA / CAPS, well that's something I can't learn by reading the rules.

[stayhigh 2]

Lodi's policy is whatever Bill says.

and you say, "Yes, Bill" 100% of the time.

the guy kicks you out for touching the risers on the landing. what make you think that Bill will let you use BASE rig?

straight in approach, no funny stuff on landing, you must pitch the drogue within 3 seconds. safest DZ in the world.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[JWest 0]

mxk

***JWest is correct.
The FAA screwed up their wording so that single harness, single canopy systems are not excluded from jumping.

I don't think so. First, if you only have one parachute, then it's also your emergency chute and 91.307(a) kicks in: "No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it is an approved type and has been packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger."

Second, part 105 has specific definitions of a "parachute operation" and "parachutist," which is "a person who intends to exit an aircraft while in flight using a single-harness, dual parachute system to descend to the surface." If you don't meet that definition, then you're not doing a part 105 jump, which puts you in violation of 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."

But hey, if you can find a pilot who is willing to risk his certificate on this supposed loophole, have fun

There we have it. The regulation that closes the loophole found in 105.

[riggerrob 558]

......

Parachutes for pilots? There are almost no federal rules on them, which surprises many. You can go fly aerobatics with something packed 20 years ago. (Although maybe not in a contest because the organization involved won't allow it). ....

....................................................................

Last time I had dinner with Donn Richardson (long-time pilot-examiner, retired jump-pilot and still competes in his aerobatic Christen Eagle) he said "Since CARs say very little about aerobatics, we follow International Aerobatic Committee rules about double seat-belts, parachutes, etc."
And that is my point: TC recognizes the "best business practices" as written by IAC, CSPA, CAPS, Soaring Association of Canada, North American Trainer Association, Warbirds of America, etc.

Both IAC and the Soaring Association of Canada ramp-check airplanes for annual inspections, parachutes in date, etc. IOW you cannot compete in aerobatics or soaring with an out-of-inspection parachute. And it is extremely difficult to earn a TC air show waiver without a few years of aerobatic competition experience.
As for sitting on a pilot emergency parachute that has not been inspecting over the last 20 years ..... Don't you remember the phrase "in accordance with manufacturers' instructions"????? from your first riggers' course.
CARs forbid installing any aeronautical accessory (seat-belt, life-raft, radio, parachute, etc. that is not "maintained in accordance with manufacturers' instructions."
All the manuals for PEPs include inspection schedules "... Within the last 120 days ..... 180 days .... or local air regulations ..."
And CARs always loop back to "... in accordance with manufacturers' instructions ..."
BUSTED!

[shadeland 5]

Quote

Lodi's policy is whatever Bill says.

and you say, "Yes, Bill" 100% of the time.

the guy kicks you out for touching the risers on the landing. what make you think that Bill will let you use BASE rig?

straight in approach, no funny stuff on landing, you must pitch the drogue within 3 seconds. safest DZ in the world.

Except for the seat belt thing (has he changed that policy?).

[JWest 0]

***......

Parachutes for pilots? There are almost no federal rules on them, which surprises many. You can go fly aerobatics with something packed 20 years ago. (Although maybe not in a contest because the organization involved won't allow it). ....***

There is here in the US. Assuming you are in Canada. They are in FAR 91

[pchapman 261]

riggerrob

CARs forbid installing any aeronautical accessory (seat-belt, life-raft, radio, parachute, etc. that is not "maintained in accordance with manufacturers' instructions."

Hmm good point. One would have to look that up.

But might that not apply to certificated, semi-permanently installed stuff only? We all know how you can't in effect bolt something uncertified like an instrument to the instrument panel of your certified aircraft.. but you can velcro it on, stick it on your dash, etc. Like with GPS's.

Surely you can get in the airplane wearing a pair of jeans (not aircraft certified) that you washed in warm water, while the label clearly states to wash in cold water only.

As for parachutes for pilots, I was indeed making the point that there are no federal rules. As we both say, it is when you are participate in events by voluntary sporting bodies like the Soaring Association of Canada that you will almost certainly be required to have a properly packed emergency parachute.


(And @JWest, yes I'm talking about Canada specifically in this discussion with RiggerRob, partially because there are a few places where the rules surprisingly differ a lot from the US.)

[JWest 0]

My Apologies.

[UKParachutist98 0]

caa rules (in particular the air navigation order) says that all intentional parachute decents must use 2 parachutes) - so in the uk 1 chute jumps are illigal without written caa permisison

caa = civil aviation authority

[chemist 0]

JeffCa

***Not a problem, if everyone jumps BASE canopies, keeps their gear in tip top shape and leaves the velcro rigs (hey, I still jump one) at home... But we all know that will never happen.

So in other words, the margin for error is now razor-thin, and the equipment is much less forgiving of any problems or anything that isn't perfect. This would be a big pro for 2-canopy rigs.

I'm not familiar with BASE gear. Will anybody argue that a BASE rig is statistically safer than the (incredibly reliable) standard skydiving configuration? If it isn't, then using BASE gear is just more likely to result in the DZO needing to take care of your body and deflect bad publicity.

yes a BASE canopy is statistically safer, it is designed to open on heading much better (it has to be to avoid cliff strikes), they also tend to be bigger so the chance of a spinning malfunction is low.

However, the risk of a pilot chute malfunction or horseshoe, baglock or something like that is probably the same? (but even there they may be designed to be less likely to bag lock?)

So yes much safer for the BASE rig to work, the problem is there is no back up one if it didn't work.

[Bluhdow 31]

chemist

However, the risk of a pilot chute malfunction or horseshoe, baglock or something like that is probably the same? (but even there they may be designed to be less likely to bag lock?)

LOL!

Apex BASE
#1816

[Boomerdog 0]

Just read FAR 105.43 and that pretty well settles it. So...if anyone wants to change FAR 105.43, it's a legislative action.

[piisfish 135]

Bluhdow

***However, the risk of a pilot chute malfunction or horseshoe, baglock or something like that is probably the same? (but even there they may be designed to be less likely to bag lock?)

LOL!they are baglock proof, but not containerlock proof

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[billvon 2,379]

>LOL!

Never done a direct bag?

[Bluhdow 31]

Nobody does direct bags anymore.

Oh, except this girl:

http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/2015/05/12/perrine-bridge-base-jumper-rescued-after-chute-gets-tangled/27213535/

Apex BASE
#1816