Should a USPA member who is suing to shutdown a USPA Group Member Drop Zone be allowed to jump at any USPA Group Member Drop Zone?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

A parachute is a parachute. Nothing else. The rules for gliders, ultralights, planes, helicopters, blimps, or anything else do not apply to parachutes. We have our own set of rules. Parachutists are not aircraft.

Whether by design or simple omission, FAR 91.113 is silent with respect to non-powered parachutes. That's an unfortunate omission which should be remedied by a revision of the FAR. Until that happens, I'd think two different judges, even if both were pilots and skydivers, could easily disagree in good faith on whether a parachute should or should not be considered a "glider" under 91.113.

Since the default position in most legal analysis is to try to find existing laws/rules that most closely fit a given scenario, I'd cautiously predict that a majority of judges would probably rule that a parachute should be considered a glider, for the sake of right-of-way regulations, until such time as a FAR is written that specifically provided for non-powered parachutes.

[billvon 2,400]

>Wouldn't a parachute fall into the category of glider because it's unpowered?

Yes. It would fall in the category of ultralight glider, which must give way to pretty much everyone.

[stratostar 5]

I don't believe based on my communications with, that the GR office at USPA or even the FAA, holds the same point of view as you, and that's a good thing they don't. Then again I could be wrong maybe we could get Randy's point of view posted.

Then again the airport we're talking about in private, so some rules don't apply as they would on a federal funded one.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[billvon 2,400]

>I don't believe based on my communications with, that the GR office at
>USPA or even the FAA, holds the same point of view as you . . .

To be clear, I am not saying that parachutes are ultralights. They are parachutes, not aircraft, and are regulated under part 105 of the FAR's.

[AggieDave 6]

Don't you think that this discussion is clouding the reason behind this thread and it should probably be broken off into a new thread?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

>Wouldn't a parachute fall into the category of glider because it's unpowered?

Yes. It would fall in the category of ultralight glider, which must give way to pretty much everyone.

Is that conclusion based on your reading of FAR 91.113, or some other provision?

Quote

To be clear, I am not saying that parachutes are ultralights. They are parachutes, not aircraft, and are regulated under part 105 of the FAR's.

True; although it seems that FAR 105 is silent as to rights-of-way of parachutes vis-a-vis anything else in the air.

[Krip 2]

Quote

Don't you think that this discussion is clouding the reason behind this thread and it should probably be broken off into a new thread?

Ditto

One Jump Wonder

[Tolgak 0]

Quote

Quote

>Wouldn't a parachute fall into the category of glider because it's unpowered?

Yes. It would fall in the category of ultralight glider, which must give way to pretty much everyone.

Is that conclusion based on your reading of FAR 91.113, or some other provision?

Quote

To be clear, I am not saying that parachutes are ultralights. They are parachutes, not aircraft, and are regulated under part 105 of the FAR's.

True; although it seems that FAR 105 is silent as to rights-of-way of parachutes vis-a-vis anything else in the air.

The right of way for regular general aviation operations is granted for two reasons, inferior maneuverability and emergencies.

Even if the FARs don't call a parachute an aircraft, it is essentially an emergency and thus they have the right of way. As a pilot, I would give right of way to jumpers no matter what I'm flying.

Dropzones are terrible places for inspiration. What does one think when one looks up for a sign only to see a bunch of people falling?

[Andy9o8 0]

I agree. My point is, though the FARs does specifically discuss (a) parachutes (105), and (b) rights-of-way of various types of air devices deemed to be "aircraft" (91.113), the FARs are silent as to (c) rights-of-way of un-powered parachutes vis-a-vis other types of air devices. Therefore, under general "principles of interpretation of rules and statutes", one probably should apply a a provision that most closely fits, even though it does not precisely fit. In this case, that means one should probably apply the "glider" right-of-way rule to un-powered parachutes. (That's why it would be nice if the FAR was revised/amended to clarify this existing ambiguity.)

[Tolgak 0]

Quote

I agree. My point is, though the FARs does specifically discuss (a) parachutes (105), and (b) rights-of-way of various types of air devices deemed to be "aircraft" (91.113), the FARs are silent as to (c) rights-of-way of un-powered parachutes vis-a-vis other types of air devices. Therefore, under general "principles of interpretation of rules and statutes", one probably should apply a a provision that most closely fits, even though it does not precisely fit. In this case, that means one should probably apply the "glider" right-of-way rule to un-powered parachutes. (That's why it would be nice if the FAR was revised/amended to clarify this existing ambiguity.)

It's funny you should suggest that, as it's already one of my goals over the next few months to decrease collision threats with jumpers and other non-powered traffic by proposing changes to the FARs and FAA publications. I haven't gone far enough in my research yet, but I'm sure there's something already defining this. In any case, my efforts will hopefully make it more visible.

Dropzones are terrible places for inspiration. What does one think when one looks up for a sign only to see a bunch of people falling?

[stratostar 5]

From the Skydive Paris TN vs Henry County case files. One of the countys reasons for banning jump op's was the DZ over lapped an OFA (object free area) and there for endangered arriving and departing AC.

There is a lot more to the case that would pertain to this case in TX, albit one is a federal funded airport and one is private, regardless the dertimation has been made from the very high up in the FAA and still holds water today and is cited in other airport access cases by the FAA.

Quote

Recognizing that this type of interpretation may not be frequently observed and reviewed by other FAA offices, the Director deemed it appropriate to request the Flight Standards Service review the June 2004 safety study. Therefore, the Director requested that the Certification and General Aviation Operations Branch, a national branch within the Flight Standards Service, re-examine the situation at Henry County Airport to determined whether skydiving operations could be safely accommodated taking into consideration the guidance in AC 150/5300-13 regarding runway OFAs. [FAA Exhibit 3, Item 3.]

"November 2005 Review of June 2004 Safety Study.
By memorandum to the Director dated November 16, 2005, the Manager of the General Aviation and Commercial Division for FAA’s Flight Standards Service reaffirmed its June 2004 safety determination and stated that ‘the Flight Standards Service stands by its initial findings, concluding that the aforementioned drop zones may be safely accommodated at this airport.” [FAA Exhibit 3, Item 4.]

Flight Standards Service found that “the coexistence of an OFA with an established dropzone is not inherently unsafe, and that each situation must by judged on its individual merits.” [FAA Exhibit 3, Item 4.] Flight Standards Service notes “OFAs are establish to limit interference with navigational facilities and to reduce the risk of collision for aircraft operating in proximity to the runway.” [FAA Exhibit 3, Item 4.]

Of specific relation to this case, Flight Standards Service provided,

“While we would not presume to call skydivers ‘aircraft’, there exists a longstanding precedent for affording skydivers the same operational latitude given to an aircraft in flight or while taxiing…It is also worth noting that OFAs speak to stationary objects that will remain in a fixed position (such as parked aircraft) for some indeterminate period of time. This is not the case with skydivers who will land and quickly vacate the OFA.” [FAA Exhibit 3, Item 4]

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

“While we would not presume to call skydivers ‘aircraft’, there exists a longstanding precedent for affording skydivers the same operational latitude given to an aircraft in flight or while taxiing…It is also worth noting that OFAs speak to stationary objects that will remain in a fixed position (such as parked aircraft) for some indeterminate period of time. This is not the case with skydivers who will land and quickly vacate the OFA.”

That looks like a good precedent for why skydivers should be allowed to land on runways at an established drop zone. Skydivers are no different than other aircraft which use those runways. They use them for landing, and then move off to clear them for other traffic. Thanks!

[stratostar 5]

This is why I tried to tell you to get a copy of the case, I would be more then happy to send you the PDF file, there is way more in the case you need to read that favors your case. The PDF is to large to upload here 517kb. PM me your real email and I will send it to you.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

That looks like a good precedent for why skydivers should be allowed to land on runways at an established drop zone.

My guess is that if someone tested that theory, the FAA would lean away from thinking of parachutists as aircraft and more toward them being objects dropped from aircraft. If we want to compare skydivers to something else mentioned in the FARs, objects dropped from aircraft probably come closest. If a skydiver has a close call with an aircraft, I am guessing that it's the pilot that dropped that jumper that will generally have problems. The skydiver himself is not an aircraft, a pilot, or even an aircraft having an emergency. There is no right of way for skydivers just like there's no right of way for objects dropped from aircraft. There are on the other hand plenty of rules about where, when, and how these objects can be dropped.

Dave

[stratostar 5]

It is a tested theory and the FAA issued the ruling in the the case stated above, it again has been cited by the FAA in other access cases.

Quote

By memorandum to the Director dated November 16, 2005, the Manager of the General Aviation and Commercial Division for FAA’s Flight Standards Service reaffirmed its June 2004 safety determination and stated that ‘the Flight Standards Service stands by its initial findings, concluding that the aforementioned drop zones may be safely accommodated at this airport.” [FAA Exhibit 3, Item 4.]

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[pilotdave 0]

I was really responding to the idea of skydivers using runways and claiming to be aircraft. I don't believe it would "fly" based on that ruling. Landing on runways occasionally by accident is another story.

Dave

[stratostar 5]

Well I believe the FAA own key words here are......

Quote

there exists a longstanding precedent for affording skydivers the same operational latitude given to an aircraft in flight or while taxiing

Landing would be considered "in flight" .

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[oozzee 0]

on the fence

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

My guess is that if someone tested that theory, the FAA would lean away from thinking of parachutists as aircraft and more toward them being objects dropped from aircraft.

See, this is why the FARs need to be updated to deal with modern parachuting, because all this "dancing around the current definitions" is enough to drive you nuts. So is a skydiver an object dropped from an aircraft, or an aircraft? In a sense, obviously, it's both - a dropped object while in freefall; a glider, more or less, under canopy (at least a ram-air canopy).
(But wait! What about wingsuits?? )

[JohnRich 4]

News update.

The previously scheduled hearing for today was canceled.

Skydive Houston has filed a "Notice of Removal", exercising their right under the rules to change the venue of the trial from County Court to Federal Court, because the issues being contested involve FAA regulations, over which a County Court has no authority.

The Motion of Removal can be seen here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/JohnRich3rd/NoticeOfRemoval?authkey=Gv1sRgCJ6y7Z3gq4DMGg

It consists of 9 pages.
Click on the first page, then click on "full screen" at top-left to read the pages.
Click the arrows to scroll through the pages.
If that's not large enough print for you, start over again and click the magnifying glass at top-right.
Then click and drag to scroll through the images.

I know it's not an easy-to-use viewing tool, but I went through two other photo hosting sites that were even worse.

The names of the two landowners who lease the property to Skydive Houston have been removed, to protect their privacy.

I don't know what this does to the status of the restrictions placed upon Skydive Houston by the County judge. But what it does do is buy more time, since the scheduling in a federal district court is many months out into the future. And it will also allow representatives of the FAA and USPA to testify on behalf of Skydive Houston, to show that their practices are not violations of the FARs, and are in fact, perfectly legal, normal and safe.

[JohnDeere 0]

Thanks for the updates on this John! I just hope it turns out well.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[DSE 3]

thank you, John. It's a good read.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Skydive Houston has filed a "Notice of Removal", exercising their right under the rules to change the venue of the trial from County Court to Federal Court,

There are multiple reasons for/results of removing a case from state to federal court, which I deliberately won't detail here. But I will say this: compared to most state courts, most federal courts, especially trial courts, are generally very intolerant of bullshit; they tend to cut right thru all the BS to get right to the real nub of the issues at hand. The party that most benefits from this is often the party whose positions, tactics and evidence are least dependent on bullshit. Take that for what it's worth.

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

Quote

Skydive Houston has filed a "Notice of Removal", exercising their right under the rules to change the venue of the trial from County Court to Federal Court,

There are multiple reasons for/results of removing a case from state to federal court, which I deliberately won't detail here. But I will say this: compared to most state courts, most federal courts, especially trial courts, are generally very intolerant of bullshit; they tend to cut right thru all the BS to get right to the real nub of the issues at hand. The party that most benefits from this is often the party whose positions, tactics and evidence are least dependent on bullshit. Take that for what it's worth.

So from what your saying this may be a very good tactic for SDH. Good to know!

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[JohnRich 4]

Update, Oct. 19th, 2009.

The "Notice of Removal" was rejected by the Federal District Court, saying that the case was a land dispute, and therefore properly belonged back in the County Court where it started.

So the original jury trial scheduled for Oct. 19th went forward as previously planned. That was today, and I showed up to see what happened.

If you don't have the time or interest to read the following details, skip to the second-to-last paragraph of this message for the day's final outcome.

A jury pool of 50 citizens showed up from which to select 12 jurors. As a spectator, I couldn't get into the court room at first, because there wasn't enough room. After about a half-hour, they got the jurors organized in a seating arrangement, and then they let me in.

They estimated that the trial will last 5 days.

• The eight plaintiff's were introduced to the potential jurors, standing up one at a time. Anyone in the jury pool who knew one of these men had to acknowledge it, and state whether or not their relationship would affect their judgment in the case. Three jurors were familiar with a few of the plaintiffs. Then the same was done for the three defendants, and no one in the jury pool knew them.

Each attorney then got 45 minutes to question the jurors, as a group, or individually.

• The plaintiff's attorney, Mr. Sears, started off. He introduced the case as a property dispute, and falsely stated that the plaintiffs have been denied usage of the airport.

General questions asked:
Has anyone ever made a skydive? None. One ex-Army paratrooper.
Known a skydiver? One.
Live nearby the skydiving operation? One.
Anyone a pilot? None, but one has a daughter who is a pilot and skydiver.
Anyone ever in a property dispute? None.
Anyone live in a neighborhood with deed restrictions? Several.
Anyone in the real estate business? Several.

Then Mr. Sears rummaged through the juror questionnaires, and asked individual questions, about education levels and jobs.

Mr. Sears was formal and businesslike, but impersonal and detached.

• The defendant's attorney, Mr. Izen, then stepped up for his turn. He immediately corrected Mr. Sears statement that the plaintiff's have been denied usage of the airport, and stated the truth that they have continued to use the airport just as they always have. He characterized the case as one about "sharing".

General questions asked:
Are home owner association restrictions good or bad? Mixed answers.
How many of the jurors live near an airport? Several raised hands.
How many would prefer to not live near an airport? About a dozen raised hands.
How do they feel about dangerous recreational sports? None opposed.
How many have ever wanted to make a skydive? None.
How many have ever wanted to fly an airplane? None.
Have you ever had to share the use of something? Many.
What do you think of property easements? Mixed results.
How do you feel about regulations? Necessary for greater good.

Mr. Izen spent a lot of time on individual questioning, in a likable and humorous manner. He talked coffee with the the man who works in a coffee factory. He talked accounting with the accountant. He joked with the folks who had to share a bedroom with their siblings while growing up. He related to the over-the-road truck driver. He made them like him as a person - probably a good first step towards winning their favorable opinions at trial.

• After a short break, the jury was selected from the pool of 50. It included 8 women, 4 men; 10 whites, 2 blacks; ages from 25 to 65; employed and retired; from all walks of life. The remaining jury pool was released.

The court took a lunch break, and the trial would start in earnest at 1:00.

• Returning from lunch, a juror informs the judge that their father is dying from cancer and she can't serve the week of jury duty. There are no alternates. The lawyers cannot agree to continue the trial with only 11 jurors. Therefore, we have a mistrial. The entire day was a complete waste of time for about 70 people. Very frustrating!

The entire process will have to begin all over again, with more jury summons for another jury pool. That will take more time, and a new date will have to be set...

Meanwhile, Skydive Houston will continue to operate with business as usual. While their Otter is down for repair, they've leased a PAC 750.