Is this a FAR violation?

[SkyPiggie 0]

I would like some knowledgeable people to comment upon FAR 105.23(c), as shown below.

Federal Aviation Regulation
Parachute Operations
Sec. 105.23

Parachute operations over or onto airports.

No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from that aircraft, over or onto any airport unless--
(a) For airports with an operating control tower:
(1) Prior approval has been obtained from the management of the airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport.
(2) Approval has been obtained from the control tower to conduct parachute operations over or onto that airport.
(3) Two-way radio communications are maintained between the pilot of the aircraft involved in the parachute operation and the control tower of the airport over or onto which the parachute operation is being conducted.
(b) For airports without an operating control tower, prior approval has been obtained from the management of the airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport.
(c) A parachutist may drift over that airport with a fully deployed and properly functioning parachute if the parachutist is at least 2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattern, and avoids creating a hazard to air traffic or to persons and property on the ground.

Let's say that the uncontrolled airport has a traffic pattern of 1,000'. Therefore, skydivers would be forbidden anywhere underneath 3,000' around that airport. How can this be so, when there are parachute centers conducting operations all over the country at uncontrolled airports, and landing on airport property? What am I missing?

[JohnMitchell 14]

The pattern is only over part of the airport, to one side or the other of the runway. Airports with a lot of skydiving have their patterns established opposite of the landing area. I had forgotten it was 2000 ft. above the pattern. That seems a bit excessive.

[quade 3]

Typically an airport, will set up their traffic pattern so that airplanes are flying on one side of it and parachutists on the other with the dividing line being the runway itself.

Using Perris as an example, http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.765591,-117.218971&spn=0.023725,0.039096&t=h&z=15, you can see the landing circle, swoop pond, grass landing area . . . ALL to the EAST of the runway. While the traffic pattern for the airplanes is all to the WEST of the runway.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[tombuch 0]

I think what that means is that if you are jumping at an airport without a control tower you need permission, and if you don't have permission you may still jump above that airport and drift above the traffic pattern. I think (and I may be wrong in my reading of the regulation) that (c) is related to (b), and it would be better written with (c) indented and listed as sub one.

Quote

The way I read the regulation (not the way it is written)

(b) For airports without an operating control tower, prior approval has been obtained from the management of the airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport.

(1) A parachutist may drift over that airport with a fully deployed and properly
functioning parachute if the parachutist is at least 2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattern, and avoids creating a hazard to air traffic or to persons and property on the
ground.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[diverdriver 5]

The highlighted section applies only to operations to a DZ (landing area) NOT on airport property. If you have approval by airport management to land on the airport then C does not apply. That's why it's beneficial to own the airport.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[SkyPiggie 0]

Quote

[tombuch] I think what that means is that if you are jumping at an airport without a control tower you need permission, and if you don't have permission you may still jump above that airport and drift above the traffic pattern. I think (and I may be wrong in my reading of the regulation) that (c) is related to (b), and it would be better written with (c) indented and listed as sub one.

The way I read the regulation (not the way it is written)

(b) For airports without an operating control tower, prior approval has been obtained from the management of the airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport.

(1) A parachutist may drift over that airport with a fully deployed and properly functioning parachute if the parachutist is at least 2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattern, and avoids creating a hazard to air traffic or to persons and property on the ground.

Quote

[diverdriver] The highlighted section applies only to operations to a DZ (landing area) NOT on airport property. If you have approval by airport management to land on the airport then C does not apply. That's why it's beneficial to own the airport.

I think you two guys have defined the controversy over this FAR. Depending upon how you read it, it could go either way.

But putting on my bureaucratic legalese hat, I go with diverdriver on this one. I think it should be interpreted exactly as it's written, and not as someone may think it was intended to be written.

The fact is, there are three categories here: (a), (b) and (c).
(a) is an airport with a control tower.
(b) is an airport without a control tower, with management permission to jump there.
(c) is an airport without a control tower, without permission to jump there.

As written, I see that it says, if you are in category (b) with permission, then that's all you need. No other requirements are placed upon you, and you can fly through the pattern as necessary. And that makes sense because in that case it would be well known and advertised (NOTAM) that parachute operations occur there, and the pilots who fly there will be aware of that. If (c) was to be a condition associated with (b), then it should be a (1) instead, just as category (a) has conditions (1), (2) and (3). But it's not written that way.

So, in the case of (c), that's separate and distinct from (b), and not related to it. That would be for flying a parachute over an uncontrolled (no tower) airport where you do not have permission to land. And in that case, the parachute flight restrictions also make perfect sense, because the pilots would not be expecting parachutes at such an airport, so they shouldn't be unexpectedly appearing in the pattern. I think there may be a tendency when reading this to connect (c) to (b), because it's a bit confusing. Indentation would make it more clear, as Tom did. But the paragraph lettering clearly separate these two as different.

I would re-write is as follows, for clarity:

Federal Aviation Regulation
Parachute Operations
Sec. 105.23

Parachute operations over or onto airports.

No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from that aircraft, over or onto any airport unless--

(a) For airports with an operating control tower:

(1) Prior approval has been obtained from the management of the airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport.
(2) Approval has been obtained from the control tower to conduct parachute operations over or onto that airport.
(3) Two-way radio communications are maintained between the pilot of the aircraft involved in the parachute operation and the control tower of the airport over or onto which the parachute operation is being conducted.

(b) For airports without an operating control tower, where prior approval has been obtained from the management of the airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport.

(c) For airports without an operating control tower, without prior approval from the management of the airport, a parachutist may drift over that airport with a fully deployed and properly functioning parachute if the parachutist is at least 2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattern, and avoids creating a hazard to air traffic or to persons and property on the ground.

Therefore, at an uncontrolled airport, with management permission to land there (case (b)), it is NOT a violation of this FAR for skydivers to be flying their parachutes through the pattern, or landing their parachutes on or near the runways. That's my take on it. There are bound to be some FAA rulings to this effect out there, or otherwise skydiving would be shut down at many locations all over the country. Can anyone cite any such FAA rulings?

Now I'm taking that hat off, because thinking like a bureaucrat hurts my head.

- SkyPiggie signing out

[bfilarsky 0]

You guys are interpreting this incorrectly.

No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from that aircraft, over or onto any airport unless—

(a) For airports with an operating control tower: (NA in this case).............


(b) For airports without an operating control tower, prior approval has been obtained from the management of the airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport.

(c) A parachutist may drift over that airport with a fully deployed and properly functioning parachute if the parachutist is at least 2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattern, and avoids creating a hazard to air traffic or to persons and property on the ground.





First, you must comply with A or B, whichever applies to your airport. In this case, its B. You NEED airport management's permission to drop onto the field. You can not parachute onto the field without permission.

You then need to comply with C. C is not specific to whether you are at a controlled (A) or uncontrolled (B) field. You need to stay at least 2,000 ft above the traffic pattern when flying over the airport. This is WITH permission of airport management.

Landing on the runway or going through the traffic pattern is a very bad idea. Just because there is a NOTAM and regular jumping activities in progress does not mean it is in any way safe to find yourself in the aircraft traffic pattern or on the runway. The reg is good the way it is written, IMNSHO.

[SkyPiggie 0]

Quote

You guys are interpreting this incorrectly. First, you must comply with A or B, whichever applies to your airport. In this case, its B. You then need to comply with C.

Okay, I can see that interpretation too. Leave it to the government to put things in such confusing language!

So now the opinions we have, in boolean logic, can be summed up as:

A or B or C
A or (B and C)
(A or B) and C

And if you're correct, then doesn't that mean that most of the drop zones in America are in violation of this FAR?
That's what makes me think there must be something more to this story...

Either there's something else that makes drop zones legal with this FAR,
or else it's the most widely broken rule in skydiving and the Feds have always ignored it.

[shaark 0]

And just to stir it further, it can be argued that virtually all the airspace at a non-towered airport from the ground to pattern altitude is part of the pattern. vis: upwind, downwind, base, final, cross-wind off the end, mid-field cross-wind, a missed approach with a climbing turn, and ???
That being the case, a parachutist could never descend to land, even with permission.
More positive: in the AIM, section3-4-5, "----- pilots should avoid releasing parachutes while in an airport traffic pattern when there are other aircraft in that pattern.----" That reads that it is ok to drop in a traffic pattern, and by extrapolation drop into a pattern, just be careful.

Back to #105.23
Using a standard grammatical English reading:

The heading paragraph defines the section vis 'over or onto ANY airport'. Then comes sub-sections A, B and C.

In A, B and C any time there is a reference to 'that' airport this refers internally in the sub-section, and thence back to 'any' airport in the heading paragraph. It does not refer to an airport mentioned in any other sub-section.

Each sub-section stands alone. So it IS legal to parachute over or on an airport if prior approval has been obtained.
Sub-section (c) allows a parachutist to drift across any airport, if at least 2,000 feet above the traffic pattern, but must also avoid creating a hazard ----.

You can drift over many towered or non-towered airports without prior permission, but not over, say, Chicago O'Hare. (Airspace rules also apply.)
__________________________________________________
tanstaafl

[bfilarsky 0]

Quote

Quote

You guys are interpreting this incorrectly. First, you must comply with A or B, whichever applies to your airport. In this case, its B. You then need to comply with C.

Okay, I can see that interpretation too. Leave it to the government to put things in such confusing language!

So now the opinions we have, in boolean logic, can be summed up as:

A or B or C
A or (B and C)
(A or B) and C

And if you're correct, then doesn't that mean that most of the drop zones in America are in violation of this FAR?
That's what makes me think there must be something more to this story...

Either there's something else that makes drop zones legal with this FAR,
or else it's the most widely broken rule in skydiving and the Feds have always ignored it.

Technically, its A & B & C. Only A OR B will apply, never both.

[riggerrob 558]

Getting even sillier ...
Class A airspace is above 18,000 feet in Canada, so why are skydivers wasting time babbling about it?????

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

So now the opinions we have, in boolean logic, can be summed up as:

A or B or C

From my 25 years as an FAA regs scholar, I would chose A or B or C.

[jimmyh 0]

At NorCal Skydiving (Cloverdale, CA), we have permission from the management, and we do not fly our parachutes in, over, or through the traffic pattern below 3,000ft.

At our location the runway runs North and South. Aircraft fly right and left hand patterns to the East, and parachutes fly right and left hand patterns to the West.

That way pilots and parachutists know, unless an exceptional situation arises, what to expect from the other.

I can't imagine, unless it is an emergency, why a pachutist would fly through a pattern filled with aircraft below 3K.

[SkyPiggie 0]

Quote

I can't imagine, unless it is an emergency, why a pachutist would fly through a pattern filled with aircraft below 3K.

If the pattern was filled with aircraft, I would agree.

What if the airport is a private one, owned and managed by the DZ, 95% of the air traffic is the DZ plane, and it were rare for any other aircraft to use the runway.

Would that be a violation of this FAR to land on your own runway property, which is only rarely used by other aircraft, whose pilots are fully aware of DZ activities?

In other words, does rare non-DZ traffic have the right to force skydivers to land off their own airport, when the skydiving operations constitute the large majority of the airport usage?

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

I can't imagine, unless it is an emergency, why a pachutist would fly through a pattern filled with aircraft below 3K.

If the pattern was filled with aircraft, I would agree.

What if the airport is a private one, owned and managed by the DZ, 95% of the air traffic is the DZ plane, and it were rare for any other aircraft to use the runway.

Would that be a violation of this FAR to land on your own runway property, which is only rarely used by other aircraft, whose pilots are fully aware of DZ activities?

In other words, does rare non-DZ traffic have the right to force skydivers to land off their own airport, when the skydiving operations constitute the large majority of the airport usage?

105.23 starts by saying that it applies to "parachute operations... over or onto ANY airport...". There is no distinction between private use and public use airports.

So no, it does not seem that owning the airport would exempt you from the regulation.

The FARs are not often concerned with rights or fairness. Their intent is to address safety, and most of the time, we all benefit from that. Sometimes one user group will be on the wrong end of the safety questions. You won't get anywhere trying to put a dropzone at Chicago O'Hare (ORD) no matter what your rights of equal access might be.

There's still the question of if you comply with "((a) or (b)) and (c)", or possibly "(a) or (b) or (c)". That is, "does (c) apply if you have permission per (a) or (b)". Clarification on this might be helpful. But, drawing attention to the issue if it is the way I think it is would not be to our advantage. (Personally, I believe that compliance with (c) is required even if you have permissions per (a) or (b).)

There are numerous issues where we get by with what we do because examination is not too very close and/or nobody is filing complaints.

This might just be one of them.

[SkyPiggie 0]

I've had time to look into this matter in more detail now, and I have three new items to enter into evidence.

Item #1

Look at this older version of the same rule, when it was numbered 105.17 - see the attached screen image, below.

Source: http://www.std.com/obi/Fly-Old/ASCII/far105.txt

The way that one is written, it is very clear that "(b)" alone, "with management permission", is all you need to land a parachute on an airport. That last paragraph has now morphed into a "(c)", and confused everything. But as previously written and shown here, it's clear that the last paragraph only applies if you don't have permission.

And that last paragraph, or the new "(c)", just says that if you don't have permission, you can't land there, but you can still fly over it, 2000' above the pattern altitude.

So if all of that intent is still true, carried forward into the way the new 105.23 is written, then airport management permission is all you need to land a parachute on an airport. The new "(c)" is then irrelevant, and not binding. It is therefore NOT a violation to land a parachute on an airport, with permission.

[SkyPiggie 0]

Item #2

And to go along with that old version called 105.17, and supporting my interpretation in the last message, here is FAA Advisory Circular 105-2C - see the attached image, below.

Source: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/c96c33525870370c862569de005bd7aa/$FILE/AC105-2c.pdf
See page 12, paragraph 16.

If you have management permission, you can jump over or onto an airport.

"Onto an airport" doesn't mean flying 2,000 above it and landing somewhere else - it means just what it says - landing ON the airport.

Plain and simple. Perfectly legal! Anyone disagree now?

[SkyPiggie 0]

Do you need more convincing?

Item #3

Look at FAA Advisory Circular AC-90-66A, "Recommended Standard Traffic Patterns for Aeronautical Operations at Airports without Operating Control Towers"

Source: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf
Page 4, paragraph e - "Parachute Operations", sub-paragraph 4:

"When a drop zone has been established on an airport, parachutists are expected to land within the drop zone. At airports that have not established drop zones, parachutists should avoid landing on runways, taxiways, aprons, and their associated safety areas..."

This clearly indicates that when an airport is a drop zone, then the parachutes are EXPECTED to land on the airport. In other words, it might be considered unsafe for them NOT to land on the designated airport.

Thus, once again, paragraph 105.23(c) is irrelevant and does not create a FAR violation. That paragraph only applies when airport management has not granted permission to land there.

Is there still anyone out there that remains unconvinced?

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Is there still anyone out there that remains unconvinced?

Not me! I am completely convinced that 105.23 does not represent the intent.

Thanks for all the research.

I'll now reverse my position on getting clarification from the FAA.

Armed with the background documentation that you have, we should absolutely press for a clarification.

The regulation as it is currently written, if taken literally, could still cause a big mess. Without clarification, the battle could need to be fought more than once.

So, getting on official position published for all to see would be a great public service.

[stratostar 5]

It's already spelled out in a number of places in the FAR's. You might want to read and understand this info before you try kicking the sleeping giant and ask for a change to something that dosen't need changing. However, this deals with federal funded PUBLIC airports, NOT private fields.

1. http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/publications/orders/media/Obligations_5190_6a.pdf

In a number of place in this order, to many to point to, read it a couple times and you'll get it.

2. http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/media/150-5190-7/150_5190_7.pdf

See "APPENDIX 1 DEFINITIONS" top of the page, see "A" As well as a number of other things would apply in this AC, depending on your fight.

a.

Quote

Aeronautical Activity. Any activity that involves, makes possible, or is required for the operation of aircraft or that contributes to or is required for the safety of such operations. Activities within this definition, commonly conducted on airports, include, but are not limited to, the following: general and corporate aviation, air taxi and charter operations, scheduled and nonscheduled air carrier operations, pilot training, aircraft rental and sightseeing, aerial photography, crop dusting, aerial advertising and surveying, aircraft sales and services, aircraft storage, sale of aviation petroleum products, repair and maintenance of aircraft, sale of aircraft parts, parachute or ultralight activities, and any other activities that, because of their direct relationship to the operation of aircraft, can appropriately be regarded as aeronautical activities. Activities, such as model aircraft and model rocket operations, are not aeronautical activities.

3. http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/media/150-5190-6/150_5190_6.pdf

See sub-section "F" see numbers 2 & 6

Quote

f.Skydiving.

Skydiving is an aeronautical activity. Any restriction, limitation, or ban on skydiving on the airport must be based on the grant assurance that provides that the airport sponsor may prohibit or limit aeronautical use for the safe operation of the airport (subject to FAA approval). The following questions present reasonable factors the sponsor might contemplate when developing minimum standards that apply to skydiving:
(1)
Will this activity present or create a safety hazard to the normal operations of aircraft arriving or departing from the airport? If so, has the local Airports District Office (ADO) or the Regional Airports Office been contacted and have those FAA offices sought the assistance from FAA Flight Standards (FS) and Air Traffic (AT) to assess whether safe airport operations would be jeopardized?
(2)
Can skydiving operations be safely accommodated at the airport? Can a drop zone be safely established within the boundaries of the airport? Is guidance in FAA AC-90-66A
Recommended Standards Traffic Patterns and Practices for Aeronautical Operations at Airports Without Operating Control Towers, 14 CFR Part 105 and United States Parachute Association’s (USPA) Basic Safety Requirements being followed?
(3)
What reasonable time periods can be designated for jumping in a manner consistent with Part 105? What experience requirements are needed for an on-airport drop zone?
(4)
What is a reasonable fee that the jumpers and/or their organizations can pay for the privilege of using airport property?
(5)
Has the relevant air traffic control facility been advised of the proposed parachute operation? Does the air traffic control facility have concerns about the efficiency and utility of the airport and its related instrument procedures?
(6)
Will it be necessary to determine the impact of the proposed activity on the efficiency and utility of the airport, related instrument approaches or nearby Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)? If so, has FAA Air Traffic reviewed the matter and issued a finding?

4. AC 90-66a

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

And a couple interesting power points from the FAA

1. http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/regional_guidance/great_lakes/airports_news_events/2008_conference/Media/B-6_Understanding_Your_Obligations_When_You_Accept_AIP_Grants.pdf

2.http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/regional_guidance/northwest_mountain/airports_news_events/annual_conference/2003/media/grant_assurances.ppt

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

[skydived19006 4]

We have an interesting situation, although I'm sure not all that unique. We're (k50) just outside the 5 mile radius of McConnell AFB (KIAB). The base uses a few traffic patterns, one of which routs their KC135s right over K50 at 1,200'. I do not have "permission" from the federal government, and we routinely fly right through this pattern. In the real world, it's only an issue when we jump on a week day evening, as they don't do much pattern training on the weekend. Weekdays though, there can be as many at three tankers doing closed circuit pattern work. They'll generally alter their pattern when we're jumping. Over the years, there have been a few skydivers who got a nice air to air view of a KC135. It's extremely rare, we're in contact with approach control at ICT, and we actively spot.

We also have a few KC135 pilots who are skydivers. I was informed that the KC135 (Boeing 707 variant) "...is not a very good see and be seen aircraft." Add to that the fact that those pilots are not really paying much attention to what's outside the windscreen, even if they could see you, they're not looking.

Interesting when the pilot gives "Jumpers away..." on approach frequency, and the controller comes back with "82X hold your jumpers." I ask my pilots to give "jumpers away just before "door."" It's one last chance to give a "red light."

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Do you need more convincing? Item #3

I'll add this item here, so that all the FAR 105.23 research is in one place:

Item #4

This is a FAA legal interpretation of FAR 105.23(c), which shows once again, that it is legal for parachutists to land on an airport which is designated an established drop zone.

The FAA legal interpretation, in pdf format.

[flyboy62000 0]

As someone who writes and uses such governmental documents on a daily basis (air traffic controller, commercial pilot, and governmental desk jockey), it is extremely important to pay attention to the letters, numbers, and subletters of paragraphs. In this question I will also provide an example of each scenario.

(a) For airports with an operating control tower, provisions 1, 2, and 3 must be complied with in order to meet the requirements of this paragraph. You must have approval of the airport management, you must have approval from the control tower, and you must have two way comm between the pilot and the control tower. If you do not have all three of these requirements met you are in violation of this paragraph.

Example - A DZ is located at an airport with an operating control tower. Since it is an established DZ, the operator has approval from the airport management and the control tower to conduct jump operations on the airport. However, during the flight the radios in the jump aircraft becomes inoperative. The jump must be terminated.

(b) In this case the DZ must have approval from the airport management to jump onto the airport.

Example - the typical DZ at a non-tower controlled airport. As far as this paragraph is concerned, if you have the permission of the airport management you can go ahead an jump onto the AIRPORT without any other approval. However, if the jump is made through controlled airpspace it will need to be coordinated with the controlling agency (105.25).

(c) No approval from the airport management is necessary to jump over an airport as long as you remain 2000ft above the traffic pattern. However, you must not create a hazard to air traffic or persons/property on the ground (this is a catch all sentence just in case something does go wrong).

Example - On a cross country canopy flight your flight path will be over another airport at least 2000ft above the traffic pattern. No approval is necessary other than required in other paragraphs (105.25 specifically). However, something happens that the FAA deems a hazard to air traffic or persons/property on the surface they can still get you because of the last sentence.

I hope this answers your question on this paragraph of the FARs. A good portion of my job is spent writing, reading, and revising very similar documents to this.

Blue Skies,
Adam
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . — Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

[oozzee 0]

could be

[captain_stan 0]

Quote

I think what that means is that if you are jumping at an airport without a control tower you need permission, and if you don't have permission you may still jump above that airport and drift above the traffic pattern.

This is absolutely correct. I'll add that you also need permission if the aiport has a control tower, but in that case, without permission you wouldn't be allowed to jump over it under any circumstances--not even with the 2000' traffic clearance.

Quote

The way I read the regulation (not the way it is written)

I think you are reading it exactly the way it is written; others are adding their own assumptions.

No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from that aircraft, over or onto any airport unless—

The key word here is "unless," which permits a list of exceptions:

(a) For airports with an operating control tower:
(1) [unless] Prior approval has been obtained from the management of the airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport.

Simple enough--if you have permission, there's no FAR violation.

No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from that aircraft, over or onto any airport unless—

(b) For airports without an operating control tower, [unless] prior approval has been obtained from the management of the airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport.

Simple enough--if you have permission, there's no FAR violation. After specifying the circumstances where permission is required, the FAA goes on to clarify another exception that has additional requirements attached:

(c) [unless] A parachutist may drift over that airport (the one without a control tower) with a fully deployed and properly functioning parachute if the parachutist is at least 2,000 feet above that airport’s traffic pattern, and avoids creating a hazard to air traffic or to persons and property on the ground.

This does not say "is required," but says that he or she clearly "may." Therefore you can be assured that if you maintain the 2000' clearance above the traffic pattern, you are not in violation even if you don't have permission. And those who opperate with permission (established DZs) are not required to maintain such clearance. Every public-airport DZ where I have ever jumped would be in violation if this was a requirement, because the traffic pattern covers such a broad area that it would be impossible to land on the airport without punching it.

This section clarifies that if you observe the 2000' clearance requirement, you can fly over (but not land on) an uncontrolled airport where you have no permission. This has been a factor at rural airports that have tried to exclude skydivers. In that case we lift-off from the airport and legally land nearby on private property, even if we overfly the traffic pattern. It is also a factor in doing a demo near an uncontrolled airport. The FAA has clarified that we don't need permission to overfly if we maintain traffic clearance and don't land there.