Jeffwxyz 0 #1 January 20, 2009 I have not seen anyone here post anything on these hearings. I am a bit surprised that I found out about this elsewhere. There are still 2 left. One in Burbank, Ca. on Jan. 23, 2009. The other is in Houston, TX on Jan. 28, 2009. More on this can be found here: http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/general_aviation/rules.shtm There is a section on the Experimental Aircraft Association's website. They mention that the hearing in Chicago on the 16th drew 250 people. They were unanimously opposed to the rule. http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-01-16_hearing.asp So, there are 2 more meetings. Are any DZOs and skydivers going? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #2 January 20, 2009 This is about the 5th time this has been posted.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeffwxyz 0 #3 January 22, 2009 I'm sorry if this seems redundant. I tried to find a current thread that was unlocked, but I did not find one. Also, I am trying to highlight that there are still 2 more public hearings pending. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeffwxyz 0 #4 January 22, 2009 At Regulations.gov, you can read the comments submitted regarding this matter. It appears that the majority of the comments come from those involved in General Aviation and not specificly skydiving. Here is a link to those comments: http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?sid=11EF3184DDBA&Ntt=TSA-2008-0021&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&N=8060&css=0&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055+11 I searched for the docket number with the word "skydiving" and it only found 2 results. One of them was the official comment by the USPA. The other was from an individual. His comments seem more convincing and to the point than USPA's. Here is a link to those 2. http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?css=0&N=0&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055&Ntt=TSA-2008-0021%20skydiving&sid=11EF31AE5A00 I think there should be a stronger response from us. Now they want to control >12,500 lbs. What is to say that does not get lowered once they have their "foot in the door"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snowball 0 #5 January 22, 2009 Quote At Regulations.gov, you can read the comments submitted regarding this matter. It appears that the majority of the comments come from those involved in General Aviation and not specificly skydiving. Here is a link to those comments: http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?sid=11EF3184DDBA&Ntt=TSA-2008-0021&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&N=8060&css=0&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055+11 I searched for the docket number with the word "skydiving" and it only found 2 results. One of them was the official comment by the USPA. The other was from an individual. His comments seem more convincing and to the point than USPA's. Here is a link to those 2. http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?css=0&N=0&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055&Ntt=TSA-2008-0021%20skydiving&sid=11EF31AE5A00 I think there should be a stronger response from us. Now they want to control >12,500 lbs. What is to say that does not get lowered once they have their "foot in the door"? USPA's comment is pretty lame - don't ya think? The other guy is misinformed. "Skydivers at all United States Parachute Association (USPA) Group Member Drop Zones must be licensed by USPA before being allowed to participate in skydiving activities." This ain't true and the FAA knows it. The watch list comparison has a provision for 'frequent flyers'. I made a comment to the FAA and it was never listed. The idea that jumpers may have to go through screening, ala commercial airliner flights, is not true. The NPRM proposes paper screening- names, addresses, etc. It does not propose physical screening. I do not support the NPRM, but the lame testimony by USPA sucks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #6 January 22, 2009 Quote At Regulations.gov, you can read the comments submitted regarding this matter. It appears that the majority of the comments come from those involved in General Aviation and not specificly skydiving. Here is a link to those comments: http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?sid=11EF3184DDBA&Ntt=TSA-2008-0021&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&N=8060&css=0&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055+11 I searched for the docket number with the word "skydiving" and it only found 2 results. One of them was the official comment by the USPA. The other was from an individual. His comments seem more convincing and to the point than USPA's. Here is a link to those 2. http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?css=0&N=0&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055&Ntt=TSA-2008-0021%20skydiving&sid=11EF31AE5A00 I think there should be a stronger response from us. Now they want to control >12,500 lbs. What is to say that does not get lowered once they have their "foot in the door"? Must be something wrong with their search function, because my comment is there (posted Jan 12) and it contains the word "skydiving".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #7 January 22, 2009 I wrote a response last December. I didn't see it at all, and I looked at the list from top to bottom. I did see many other names that I associate with skydivers, As someone else said, maybe the search function is lame. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #8 January 22, 2009 Quotethe lame testimony by USPA sucks. Well, now that's a shock. I suppose the 90% of the eligible membership that did not vote in the last BOD elections will bitch loudly about this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Communications 0 #9 January 23, 2009 QuoteUSPA's comment is pretty lame - don't ya think? The other guy is misinformed. "Skydivers at all United States Parachute Association (USPA) Group Member Drop Zones must be licensed by USPA before being allowed to participate in skydiving activities." This ain't true and the FAA knows it. The watch list comparison has a provision for 'frequent flyers'. I made a comment to the FAA and it was never listed. The idea that jumpers may have to go through screening, ala commercial airliner flights, is not true. The NPRM proposes paper screening- names, addresses, etc. It does not propose physical screening. I do not support the NPRM, but the lame testimony by USPA sucks. Like other associations, USPA submitted a request to the TSA for an extension to the comment deadline. The extension was granted so that February 27, 2009 is the new deadline. USPA has not yet submitted its detailed comments addressing the issue, though we are drafting them and we will submit them before the deadline. When comments are submitted online, one of the blocks asks your “organization.” A commenting USPA member may have filled in USPA as his organization, causing the confusion. Ed Scott Executive Directorwww.uspa.org Read the USPA blog! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
