Requirements for Demo Jumps?

[mjosparky 3]

It was more than likely a closed film shoot with sanitized air space for a certain period of time and a second plane flying top cover. A guy holding a SAG stuntman’s card is doing the aerial work with a SAG pilot flying. They can be issued a blanket waiver that may even have included using the back straightway for landing and takeoff. USPA has no say in the matter.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[JCW1966 0]

Quote

The media often get stuff wrong, so for all we know the 70 jumps was this year.

Actually the media got this one right. I saw an interview with Brian Vickers a couple of weeks back. The Daytona promo was mentioned and he gave his whole skydiving history. So now he has 71 jumps.

[JCW1966 0]

Quote

the video does not show the vickers dude doing a demo, it show a camera flyer landing at the race track

Actually this video shows Vicker's landing and there's smoke / dust coming from his right foot when he's standing up and walking around right at the end of the landing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiM-R2vR1E0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[JCW1966 0]

Quote

I set this whole thing up and have taken Brian on all but 3 of his jumps. I jumped through all of the hoops including clearing this with USPA. I am surprised no one has pointed out the large lake in the middle of the track and no water gear to be seen. It was called a dz for the day and it was a photo shoot.
Luke Aikins

Actually someone did mention the water about one page before your post.

I have no problem with Brian jumping into the speedway. I'd do it if given the chance regardless.

Is it good for the sport? Yeah it is, no argument there.

What I do have a problem with is the USPA setting up a DZ for a day so some rules can be circumvented to allow a low jump number skydiver who happens to be a celebrity make a skydive that the rest of us drool over just thinking about it.

Thanks for telling us how the organization that takes our money and tries to run our sport will circumnavigate their own rules when it fits their agenda. Bet they took money for a charter membership for this "DZ for a day" too.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Nope. My point is that demo jumps are not just like any other jumps. A jump into a stadium, speedway, city park etc etc is not just as safe as a jump into a landing area at a DZ. It is MUCH more dangerous, and low time jumpers should wait until they have the experience to do them safely. That's why there are specific USPA rules for demos.

That landing area was bigger than quite a few DZ's

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[nigel99 144]

Quote

Quote

Nope. My point is that demo jumps are not just like any other jumps. A jump into a stadium, speedway, city park etc etc is not just as safe as a jump into a landing area at a DZ. It is MUCH more dangerous, and low time jumpers should wait until they have the experience to do them safely. That's why there are specific USPA rules for demos.

That landing area was bigger than quite a few DZ's

So do you agree with the fact that the rules appear to have been "bent" to accommodate him?

70-200 jumps for a C license is not difficult to achieve if you are funded. The majority of the jumps could be done as a hop and pop so you are talking a couple of weeks effort. Then there would be no need to bend the rules.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

70-200 jumps for a C license is not difficult to achieve if you are funded. The majority of the jumps could be done as a hop and pop so you are talking a couple of weeks effort. Then there would be no need to bend the rules.

We generally get a couple people a month that need to do a "big way" in order to qualify for their group formation dives. Make sure you get those knocked out too!

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[billvon 2,400]

>That landing area was bigger than quite a few DZ's

It doesn't matter, as you well know. We've done demos in downtown San Francisco into areas considerably larger than the grass strip in Perris. Anyone who concluded "well, then, it's just as safe to have a 70 jump guy jump there as at Perris" would be an idiot.

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

>That landing area was bigger than quite a few DZ's

It doesn't matter, as you well know. We've done demos in downtown San Francisco into areas considerably larger than the grass strip in Perris. Anyone who concluded "well, then, it's just as safe to have a 70 jump guy jump there as at Perris" would be an idiot.

My back yard is larger than the "grass strip" at Perris.

And again..it was really not a demo. IT WAS good for the sport and WILL generate more business than anything else the USPA marketing dept.

How many of your demo's got posted on mulitiple media websites. The comment sections prove that it is good for the sport.

With any jump, things can go wrong. People can die and should Brian have died skydiving, the report would have said Brian Vickers dies in skydiving accident and no video of the jump would probably have been released.....like any other skydiving accident.

Bill - green is your color.
j

j

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[Ron 7]

Quote

>That landing area was bigger than quite a few DZ's

It doesn't matter, as you well know. We've done demos in downtown San Francisco into areas considerably larger than the grass strip in Perris. Anyone who concluded "well, then, it's just as safe to have a 70 jump guy jump there as at Perris" would be an idiot.

Yes, but the safe landing area at the track would be like landing in ALL of Perris's landing area, not just the stripe.

The point being that while it was not a great idea... It was not much more dangerous than a jump at a new DZ for a guy with 70 jumps.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[DaVinciflies 0]

Quote

>That landing area was bigger than quite a few DZ's

It doesn't matter, as you well know. We've done demos in downtown San Francisco into areas considerably larger than the grass strip in Perris. Anyone who concluded "well, then, it's just as safe to have a 70 jump guy jump there as at Perris" would be an idiot.

Not a great example, particularly this year. There is probably considerably less canopy traffic in downtown San Francisco than Perris.

[Ron 7]

Quote

So do you agree with the fact that the rules appear to have been "bent" to accommodate him?

No, and most people that know me know I tend to side on the safe side in most cases... Plus I said he looked a little stupid on landing.

Still, it seems some are pissed because they would not have been allowed to do it.

Looking at it from a purely risk assessment angle... The danger was not much, if at all, more dangerous than a 70 jump jumper doing a solo at a new DZ with a big landing area.

Quote

70-200 jumps for a C license is not difficult to achieve if you are funded. The majority of the jumps could be done as a hop and pop so you are talking a couple of weeks effort. Then there would be no need to bend the rules.

And for the risk factor of this jump, 70 jumps was not a super stretch for a decently heads up jumper.

That does not mean it was a good idea, but that landing area is big enough that I feel I could put a L2 AFF student in there... Again, not saying that would be a good idea either... Just saying the landing area was clearly big enough and the risk would not be , IMO, 'insane'.

Yes, I'd he had died it would have been terrible... But if he had had 7k jumps it would not have been any better.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,400]

>It was not much more dangerous than a jump at a new DZ for a guy with 70 jumps.

Right. And jumping a 1.8 to 1 canopy is not all that much more dangerous than jumping a 1.1 to 1 canopy for someone with 70 jumps, either - as long as they're careful. What could go wrong? And other people have done it, so it's probably fine.

[Ron 7]

Quote

>It was not much more dangerous than a jump at a new DZ for a guy with 70 jumps.

Right. And jumping a 1.8 to 1 canopy is not all that much more dangerous than jumping a 1.1 to 1 canopy for someone with 70 jumps, either - as long as they're careful. What could go wrong? And other people have done it, so it's probably fine.

Your comparison is so wrong it is silly.

Mine is a guy landing in a large (maybe larger) but different landing area. Yours is putting a guy under a much higher performance canopy.

Your desire to be argumentative here has trumped your logic.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,400]

>Your comparison is so wrong it is silly.

"It's just a 1.8 to 1 canopy. Other people jump them. I'll be careful. Anyway I drive motorcycles so I can advance much faster than less skilled skydivers."

"It's a tiny camera, so small that there's almost no snag hazard. I'll just turn it on and forget it. It will be exactly like all my other jumps; there's no difference!"

"I'm just going to jump with my girlfriend when she does a tandem. I will be super safe and not even get that close to her. It won't be much different than any other jump; I've been on loads with tandems before."

"It's not even really a demo. The landing area is even bigger than a DZ I jumped at once."

Skydiving is full of people trying to justify doing things they want to do. Often they don't even know why what they are doing is more dangerous/risky than their other jumps. It takes some experience to understand why jumping a camera isn't just like every other jump, why it takes a lot of experience and training to jump small canopies, why a tandem isn't just another skydive, and why demos are not like jumps at a DZ. It behooves experienced jumpers to explain those reasons to newer jumpers to help allow them to get the experience they need to make those decisions on their own. USPA has a role there, and does publish rules and guidelines to help newer jumpers understand what skills and experience they need to safely make jumps. But it's up to us to tell them that those rules are written in blood, not by some administrative busybody who is just trying to keep them from having fun.

[wolfriverjoe 1,341]

Quote

Quote

>It was not much more dangerous than a jump at a new DZ for a guy with 70 jumps.

Right. And jumping a 1.8 to 1 canopy is not all that much more dangerous than jumping a 1.1 to 1 canopy for someone with 70 jumps, either - as long as they're careful. What could go wrong? And other people have done it, so it's probably fine.

Your comparison is so wrong it is silly.

Mine is a guy landing in a large (maybe larger) but different landing area. Yours is putting a guy under a much higher performance canopy.

Your desire to be argumentative here has trumped your logic.

I think a better comparison would be jumping a camera.
While the physical differences (for both the camera jump and this demo) from a regular jump aren't all that much, the mental differences are huge.

Most agree that the idea of "I'll just turn the camera on and forget about it" is difficult if not impossible.
The idea that this was just another jump, just into a different landing area is ignoring the realities of the situation. The pressures of making the jump, the pressures of not calling it off, the pressures of "looking good" for the cameras.

Even if the production crew told him to feel free to call it off from the plane or to land out if necessary, how much pressure would he have put on himself to get it right?
How easy would it have been for that pressure to overcome common sense and good judgement?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Ron 7]

Quote

I think a better comparison would be jumping a camera.

Not really, the USPA has a requirement of 200 jumps to JUMP a camera, not to be videoed on a jump. Dont forget we often have AFF first jump students getting video.

And people seem to just be ignoring that the area he landed in is MUCh bigger than the experienced landing area at his home DZ.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

Skydiving is full of people trying to justify doing things they want to do.

Again, you clearly are just trying to be argumentative.

I am not trying to justify anything. I have no relationship to NASCAR or the driver that did the jump.

What I am is a guy with a PRO rating with several hundred jumps at DeLand AND a few jumps into the 'demo' location. I know both landing areas and can say from experience that the speedway is bigger.

Quote

Often they don't even know why what they are doing is more dangerous/risky than their other jumps. It takes some experience to understand why jumping a camera isn't just like every other jump, why it takes a lot of experience and training to jump small canopies, why a tandem isn't just another skydive, and why demos are not like jumps at a DZ.

Being PRO rated, an AFF I, and with experience at BOTH locations, I think I am qualified to have an opinion on the level of danger of landing at either location.

Have you landed at the speedway in question?

Having jumped at BOTH locations, I think that I am qualified to have an opinion on the level of risk of landing at either location.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[wolfriverjoe 1,341]

Quote

Quote

I think a better comparison would be jumping a camera.

Not really, the USPA has a requirement of 200 jumps to JUMP a camera, not to be videoed on a jump. Dont forget we often have AFF first jump students getting video.

And people seem to just be ignoring that the area he landed in is MUCh bigger than the experienced landing area at his home DZ.

That's what I meant. Actually jumping with a camera. It is strongly discouraged for less experienced jumpers because of everything involved in adding a camera to a normal jump.

AFF students being videod on a jump are doing it for their own purposes. Usually as a training tool or to have something to show their friends/family. The video isn't the main purpose of the AFF jump.

Looking good for the camera was the main purpose for this event. The jump wouldn't have happened otherwise.

I'm not ignoring the size of the landing area. I just don't see it as any more relevant than the size of a camera (small format like a GoPro).

The pressures to make the jump and land inside the track because all the cameras and crew and permissions and all of that could easily have caused Vickers to make a bad decision to jump (to not call off the jump when he should have) if the winds had picked up, or to try for the track when a bad spot made landing out a much better decision.

None of these things actually happened, but they certainly could have.

And it is entirely possible that there was a "safety guy" who was responsible for determining that the conditions, spot, winds, ect. were within safe parameters. A safety guy who wouldn't succumb to the pressures of getting it done and would call the jump off if he thought Vickers couldn't do it safely.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[sacex250 0]

Bill for sake of argument, if Daytona decided to open a USPA full-time dropzone in the infield available for use when the track wasn't being used, would you have a problem with jumps being made there? After all, the landing area is easily 100 meters from any hazard as required for student jumps. To the FAA, it's not a congested area if no people are present.

BTW to correct something you said earlier, congested areas are not marked on VFR sectionals. There is no specific definition of "congested area."

Quote

Rather, a "congested area" is determined on a case-by-case basis. According to the Board, "the determination must take into consideration all circumstances, not only the size of an area and the number of homes or structures, but, for example, whether the buildings are occupied or people are otherwise present, such as on roads."

Multiple legal interpretations issued by the FAA's Office of the Chief Counsel have also addressed this issue and reiterated the "case-by-case" analysis used to determine whether an area is congested. Size of the area is not controlling, and violations of the rule have been sustained for operation of aircraft: (i) over a small congested area consisting of approximately 10 houses and a school; (ii) over the campus of a university; (iii) over a beach area along a highway; and (iv) over a boy's camp where there were numerous people on the docks and children at play on shore. The legal interpretations have noted that the presence of people is important to the determination of whether a particular area is "congested." Thus, large, heavily congested residential areas of a city, town, or settlement would be considered "congested areas."

So, if there's no one in the stands then it's not likely a "congested area" or an "open air assembly of persons." Even the USPA demo standards classifies the landing area as an "Open Field," It doesn't even come close to the definition of a "Level 1", "Level 2", or "Stadium" landing area.

Now, if Brian Vickers were jumping at said DZ, or any DZ for that matter, and a TV crew were interviewing him about it, would it be a demo jump? I don't think so.

A similar situation occured a few days before the 2005 Indianapolis 500 when Dario Franchitti, as part of an interview, took an ABC camera crew up for a ride in his personal helicopter over the track. Even if Dario was just a private pilot, the flight would be legal as long as he was paying for the cost of the flight. It wouldn't be a commercial operation, and as long as he followed the Part 91 operating rules then the FAA wouldn't give a hoot.

I suspect the situation is exactly the same with Vicker's jump. As far as the FAA is concerned, it's just a jump onto private property, not a demo.

--

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[billvon 2,400]

>vBill for sake of argument, if Daytona decided to open a USPA full-time
>dropzone in the infield available for use when the track wasn't being used,
>would you have a problem with jumps being made there?

The first time it was jumped as a DZ then yes, the risks would be similar. However, as time went on and pilots got more experienced, jumpers learned the outs and organizers better understood the risks, the risk would drop dramatically.

>BTW to correct something you said earlier, congested areas are not
>marked on VFR sectionals.

Technically correct. The yellow areas on sectionals are literally defined as "populated areas" and do not necessarily correspond to congested areas, and there are definitely some congested areas that are not marked as yellow on sectionals. Indeed, there is no legal definition of "congested" in the FAR's or AIM.

However, since the FAA has defined even areas near well-spaced homes as "congested" it's a fair bet that if it does go to court, the court will decide that any area that is considered "populated" meets the definition of "congested" as well.

>As far as the FAA is concerned, it's just a jump onto private property, not a demo.

Agreed. Per the FAA it's legal. Again, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[Ron 7]

Quote

That's what I meant. Actually jumping with a camera. It is strongly discouraged for less experienced jumpers because of everything involved in adding a camera to a normal jump.

OK, but this jumper was not jumping a camera. He did a short freefall into a field that was bigger than his home DZ.

Quote

I'm not ignoring the size of the landing area. I just don't see it as any more relevant than the size of a camera (small format like a GoPro).

Apples and oranges. The guy did a jump into a new landing area that was larger than many DZ's and bigger than the landing area at his DZ... (And no aircraft taking off, landing, and taxiing.)

If this jumper had jumped into a new DZ and had his family watching the landing... What would have been different? And this is a jump that happens many times a year.

The rules for demos are mainly to protect the spectators, not the jumpers. To prevent things like the demo jumper years ago that knocked a baby out of the arms if it's mother and causing the fall that killed the child.

Due to the fact that the landing area is BIGGER, with less traffic, and that the speedway was empty, that they had a very experienced jumper doing the video (safety guy)... I fail to see why anyone is getting pissed at this.

It was no more dangerous than these types of jumps that happen every day around the US when a new jumper goes to a new DZ.

Also, the jumper is not exactly 'normal' his job is to race a car infront of tens of thousands of fans at close to 200 MPH.

IF the speedway had been full, then yeah, due to the risk to the SPECTATORS I'd be calling for someone's head. But having knowledge of the speedway and the jumpers home DZ... This really is not that bug of a deal.

I can't help but wonder if some people are just upset because he got to do something they would not be allowed to do.

At any rate... I see this as a total non-issue, so I am done here. If you have first hand exp jumping into this speedway and feel this was dangerous... I'll gladly discuss this further. If not, then it is kinda silly to continue and I am done.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

There is no specific definition of "congested area."

I am not sure where you got you quote but the FAA has a published definition for “congested areas”.

Sparky

---

91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

1.Congested area. A city town or settlement, or open air assembly of people.

---

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[sacex250 0]

Quote

I am not sure where you got you quote but the FAA has a published definition for “congested areas”.

Sparky

---

91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

1.Congested area. A city town or settlement, or open air assembly of people.

---

You misread the rule. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement.

The FAA has outright said that:

1) They refuse to define what a "congested area" is.

2) Any interpretation will be handled on a "case-by-case basis."

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[diablopilot 2]

Sure looks like Sparky has shown printed evidence of a definition by the FAA where as you have provided hearsay.

Now the FAA had the flexibility to interpret how they like, but if I were a betting man, I think that the definition laid down in 91.119 is pretty enforceable in a court.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.