Stunts; pissing on our sport to make money.

[tdog 0]

I read the thread, saw the photos, about a skydiver's recent leap from an aircraft without a parachute. The thread does not indicate if the basic regulation that a skydiver has to have a main and reserve in a TSO container, was waived for the stunt/film/beverage company publicity.

Here is my little soap box about publicity stunts.

Quote

I saw the video footage, and seeing someone in freefall w/o a rig is one of the strangest thing Ive seen in my life. Just wait till the movie comes out.

I will not buy the movie or support the beverage company if they are behind this.

We have a very delicate sport where regulations are always being pushed down from the government, while we beg for more freedom and less regulations.

Showing the FAA in high definition that we don't follow the most basic regulations published, we are inviting them to regulate our sport more, or deny the simple requests DZOs might make the next time they are flying a demo load or needing a modification to be approved.

It is not far fetched for the water cooler talk at the FAA offices to go something like this:

"Did you see that stunt where that guy jumped without a parachute on that commercial."

"Yes, I did. Those guys are idiots, and the local DZ just asked for a waiver for their operations. I don't know if I should give it to them, if they pull a similar stunt, my name is going to be trashed. I think we need to go by the book 100% so Washington does not throw us under the bus. Actually, I will go up to that DZ tomorrow and do a full inspection. How about you go to the other one."

There have been "stunts" in the past that were more like magic - a hidden rig - a plan B - a hidden safety wire, etc.

This stunt appears to be highly risky to our sport in that there was no plan B.

1) If he went in, the fall out would have been huge.

2) When the FAA inspectors see this, they are going to have video proof that a skydiver, a pilot, and an airport pissed in their face and broke the few regulations in our sport, for the sake of a publicity stunt.

If you are going to skydive from an aircraft from 400 feet with your BASE rig - don't publish it. If you are going to skydive without a parachute - don't publish it. If you are going to skydive from an aircraft, land on a building, then BASE off the building with your reserve - don't publish it.

I don't care if you do stunts for your own personal gratification, I have a rebellious side too and these jumps can be fun and rewarding, I just kindly ask that you don't sell out our sport for your, or a beverage's gain.


Note - if the stunt was done with proper waivers/paperwork, then I say go for it, go all the way, put it on the side of every bottle of sport's beverage, and show it in IMAX on the next movie - whatever! Just keep the intentional law/regulation breaking behind closed doors.


If you think I am right, don't buy this movie, and if a beverage company was behind this, buy the competitor's product. If you think I am wrong, flame me here, and buy the beverage, and watch the regulations be pushed down on us when the stunts get bigger and something goes wrong.

[Remster 24]

Quote

There have been "stunts" in the past that were more like magic - a hidden rig - a plan B - a hidden safety wire, etc.

This stunt appears to be highly risky to our sport in that there was no plan B.

It is not the 1st time someone exits a plane not attached in any way to a rig.

Remster

[Tonto 1]

It's really just a 1 point 2 way.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[NWFlyer 2]

I didn't get a look at the stunt in question, but if it's for an advertising campaign, can you really imagine a scenario where a film company and the company that's buying the advertising would be stupid enough not to cross the t's and dot the i's in doing something like this? Every car ad with risky driving says "Professional driver on closed course." Why? Because any yahoo can get a car and "try this at home." Not every yahoo can arrange a skydiving stunt, in fact, most can't, so there's probably no expectation that there would be a need to caveat the heck out of an ad like that. There may be more to the story I don't know, of course.

The other stuff you brought up ... sure, common sense within the skydiving world; if you're off doing stuff that violates FARs, keep it to yourself.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[pilotdave 0]

I just don't see it.

I can see someone going off on a rant about swoopers that break femurs or worse. Or pilots that bring the FAA out to their dropzones by diving through the traffic pattern. But high profile, legal stunts for promotions? I don't see the threat. And I don't know that having backup safety devices for those kinds of stunts make much difference as far as public perception goes, at least when things go well, since most people don't know they exist.

I think the everyday stupid skydiver tricks that don't get publicised do more harm than the big publicity stunts, which probably promote skydiving pretty well.

Dave

[BMFin 0]

BTW. The stunt was done in Puerto Rico.

Have you checked the local aviation regulations ?

[mikepall 0]

Quote

I just don't see it.

I can see someone going off on a rant about swoopers that break femurs or worse. Or pilots that bring the FAA out to their dropzones by diving through the traffic pattern. But high profile, legal stunts for promotions? I don't see the threat. And I don't know that having backup safety devices for those kinds of stunts make much difference as far as public perception goes, at least when things go well, since most people don't know they exist.

I think the everyday stupid skydiver tricks that don't get publicised do more harm than the big publicity stunts, which probably promote skydiving pretty well.

Dave

Agreed. Even if every "T" was crossed and "I" was dotted and every waiver and FAA required document was filled out someone somewhere would still bitch about it and have something to say.

Is it just me or does it seem like lately the skydiving community has turned into a bunch of whiners?

Man up people, quit your bitching and go drink a beer....or something

[beowulf 1]

It seems that you are making the assumption that it was an illegal stunt. How do you know that it was done illegally?

[tdog 0]

Quote

But high profile, legal stunts for promotions?

Was it legal? If so - then I agree - do it. I think I even said that in my first post.

My comment is that I don't think it was, just speculation, based upon how hard it would be to get the regulations waived for lack of TSOed equipment. (Since when did rock climbing harnesses carry TSO stamps?)

AND - this post is not just about this stunt - but illigal stunts in general.

When legal - do it. Publish it. Sell it. Embrace it.

When illegal - if you do it - keep it to yourself or your close friends.

If this stunt was 100% legit, all paperwork waiving the need for a TSOed parachute was signed, sealed, and delivered - then I apologize for assuming this one was bandit.

[tdog 0]

Quote

BTW. The stunt was done in Puerto Rico.

Have you checked the local aviation regulations ?

Very good point.

I have to go to work so I am out of time to research, but I see that Puerto Rico (which typically falls under US federal laws as a part of the USA) is listed in the regulations here and there. Here is an example:

Quote

Subpart B—Operating Rules

Sec 105.11 Applicability

A. Except as provided in paragraphs B and C of this section, this subpart prescribes operating rules governing parachute jumps to which this part applies.

B. This subpart does not apply to a parachute jump necessary to meet an emergency on the surface, when it is made at the direction, or with the approval, of an agency of the United States, or of a State, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, or a possession of the United States, or of a political subdivision of any of them.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

BTW. The stunt was done in Puerto Rico.

Have you checked the local aviation regulations ?

Doesn't US Federal law hold sway in PR?

[tdog 0]

Quote

Agreed. Even if every "T" was crossed and "I" was dotted and every waiver and FAA required document was filled out someone somewhere would still bitch about it and have something to say.

Is it just me or does it seem like lately the skydiving community has turned into a bunch of whiners?

Man up people, quit your bitching and go drink a beer....or something

I am a man. I don't put on youtube stuff that puts liability on my friends, or you. I have stuff I could publish, but I don't.

If every (or most, or some) of the Is and Ts were dotted and crossed I would not bitch. Maybe others would, but not me.

I just get upset when people try to hurt my ability to continue to jump by doing selfish acts - such as publishing videos of rules being broken.

I never said don't break the rules - I just said, if you do, don't do it for personal or financial gain in a publicity stunt.

P.S. I hate rules and waivers. I don't want more, I want less. The key is to not brag about breaking the few that currently exist.

[chuteless 1]

LOL LOL LOL LOL

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

LOL LOL LOL LOL

Was wondering when Bill would throw in a chuckle or three!!


BTW~ Nice letter in "Skydiving Magazine', Chuteless...& congrats!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[pchapman 261]

I do like seeing stunts.

But one can distinguish between different varieties of stunts. Some may be carefully set up a such and don't harm others, while are more like BASE dayblazing that cause problems for other jumpers.

As for the legality, what has always troubled me is that, at least at the surface, the FAA just doesn't seem to make exceptions to the skydiving rules.

Even in the field of aerobatics, heavily regulated as with most aircraft operations, airshow pilots can get low level waivers if they can demonstrate reasonable skill and experience, to fly aerobatics down low at airshows.

I wonder how hard it would be to ask for a waiver to do 400' BASE rig jumps from aircraft at airshows?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't sound likely.

Given all the different airshow acts out there, there would be a market. And it isn't as if professional airshow performers (and aerobatic pilots in general) don't get themselves killed regularly.

It is not as if the FAA regulations on skydiving equipment & altitudes apply only at airshows or within 2000' laterally of any person or structure, to avoid harm to the rest of society. One can fly a plane right down on the deck, legally, if well away from persons and structures. (Although regulations on maintaining the aircraft still apply).

While I don't know the regs that pertain to the latest chuteless jump, if it wasn't done within the law, I somewhat doubt that he had much opportunity to do it within the law if even he tried.

[chuteless 1]

does anyone know who did this stunt Tdog is referring to. Was it another chuteless jump? is there any material on the stunt published. Who was the sponsor??

Just curious

Bill Cole

[mikepall 0]

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2971611;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

[chuteless 1]

Thanks much for the data. I think its a great jump, and he deserves to be congratulated.

Bill Cole

I will have to email Andi Dachtler in Germany now and make sure he knows of it. Andi did a chuteless jump in August 2006.

[NickDG 23]

>>I wonder how hard it would be to ask for a waiver to do 400' BASE rig jumps from aircraft at airshows?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't sound likely.
I floated the idea at the San Diego FSDO some years ago and the only sticking point was the "dual approved parachute" thing, but I pretty much had them convinced skydiving gear would only make the jumps more dangerous. I think I could have secured the waiver but what I couldn't get was an Otter owner willing to go along. I was also a bit hesitant as this was in the Velcro closed BASE rig days (not a good mix with high speed) and pin rigs were still some years away.

I still think it's a viable idea, the crowds would love it, and it would be a sure money maker on the air show circuit. But I think you'd have to rotate jumpers in and out of the act as I could see myself half way through the season going, "Oh shit, it's almost one o'clock again . . ."

NickD BASE 194

[airtwardo 6]

...and it would be a sure money maker on the air show circuit.

Quote

You mean you'd lose money at a slower rate don't ya!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi tdog,

Just for the record, I'm with you.

PR is a US Possession and the FAA governs there also.

For those of you supporting this jump; take off your skydiver hat and put on your FAA hat. Here you are some flunky at some outpost FSDO and in comes this guy, who you have no idea who he is, and says that he wants you to OK his chuteless jump. Would YOU say OK? And risk your career in the process?

It's fine & dandy to make statements on the internet (we all do) but I doubt many of you would risk your career giving the OK to any stunt like this.

I also despise regs, but some of them are there for a reason (even if we don't like the reasons),

JerryBaumchen

[Andy9o8 0]

I understand your concern, but I think you're way over-estimating the potential "threat" to the sport. Bill Cole's chuteless jumps didn't kill skydiving in Canada - nor would it have had there been a bad outcome (glad there wasn't, Bill), and the fatality about a year ago where the wingsuit jumper struck the bridge with a lot of spectators on it didn't kill wingsuit flying. Mr. Bills gone bad haven't killed the sport, CRW wraps gone bad haven't killed the sport or CRW, etc., etc.

Risks are taken; some riskier than others, and sometimes there are accidents, but life goes on, and so does the sport. Warnings about hot-dogging jumpers' risking the FAA stepping in to regulate the sport into ruin have been made for the past 40 years. Hasn't happened yet.

[kimemerson 7]

Stunts is stunts, Skydiving is a sport. If he did a stunt it needs to be viewed as a stunt and not confused with what the rest of us do. Also, we don't need any main to be FAA legal. We could use a bed sheet for all they care. It's the reserve and harness that require a TSO. And the gov't is not actually always pushing down regulations while we beg for less. The FAA asks uys to stay safe and not kioll people then allow us to be self monitored. USPA has more stringent requirements than the FAA does. By FAA standards we can jump without any training using your granny's nightie as a main on a no moon night jump 40-way and pull at 200' so long as no one hets hurt on any regular basis. So keep in mind the regulations you mention are either requirements or reccomendations of USPA only. There are no proper waivers or paperwork for jumping without a main. There's no requiremet for jumping with one. The feds will get a tad nasty if the reserve is left on the ground, though.

[tdog 0]

Quote

Stunts is stunts, Skydiving is a sport.

Well, the FAA sees anyone leaving a plane intetionally as "parachuting operations".

Quote

Also, we don't need any main to be FAA legal. We could use a bed sheet for all they care. It's the reserve and harness that require a TSO.

He was not wearing a bedsheet, harness, container, or reserve. The parts the FAA do care about were left on the ground.

Quote

The feds will get a tad nasty if the reserve is left on the ground, though.

My point exactly.

Your arguments about the USPA and regulations and bed sheets have nothing to do with my post...

I said one of the few and most basic FAA regulations was broken... If USPA rules were broken, I would not care, because they can't do anything other than take my ratings... I care about the FAA because they can regulate when I can jump from a plane, and I don't want anyone else taking that right away from me for a financially motivated publicity stunt. That is selfish.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I care about the FAA because they can regulate when I can jump from a plane, and I don't want anyone else taking that right away from me for a financially motivated publicity stunt. That is selfish.

You presume an action-and-reaction (very high-risk skydiving stunt = the FAA stepping in and over-regulating the sport to the point where it's ruined for you) that I really don't think is going to happen.

There's nothing so unique about this moment in time, in the history of skydiving in the US, that makes the FAA's ruination of the sport any more likely now than at any other time in the past 40 or more years. Put another way, if that was going to happen, it would have happened by now. But it hasn't. And it won't.