BASE rigs from a Plane... again...

[AggieDave 6]

Its not a FAR, its a supporting document further defining a FAR. That means that its meaning is used in conjunction with the FAR. Thus it is law with the FAR.

Think of it like the Code of Criminal Procedure and its relationship with the Penal Code.

At least that is how things were explained to me in regards to how the FARs were setup. Either way it is like I had mentioned previously, what YOU think the FAR says means nothing. What the local FSIDO says is. Just like regular law, there is case law (FSIDO rulings) that support various interpretations of the law. All in all its clear as mud, right?

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

[boyd38off 0]

Yeah - I agree that the only interpretation that matters is that of the people who have the power to bring down the arm of the law, and not my own, however is it possible that the AC was based on the OLD wording of the FAR and not the current one? For example, if there was an "advisory circular" type of document to support the (old) law that you can not purchase alcohol from a liquor store on Sunday in Colorado, it would have been prohibited last week, but now there is clearly no prohibition against this as of yesterday. If the supporting document doesn't agree with the law, can it still be considered valid?

The AC says 105.43 requires a single harness, dual parachute system.
...... but, it no longer does in words... it USED to specifically, but doesn't any more. I know I know... I don't get to make the interpretation, but if I brought this point up to someone who DOES get to make that interpretation, do you think it would be a valid consideration?

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out and shouting,
".... holy crap....what a ride!"

[boyd38off 0]

And on a parallel note... if they were going to bust me for it, would my defense attorney have a chance of success of defending me based on the new wording of the law?

Also - anyone know of any pilot (or jumper) EVER prosecuted for this since the current wording of the FAR?

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out and shouting,
".... holy crap....what a ride!"

[AggieDave 6]

The preamble to everything typically states that the new revision superceeds the previous version.

Since you won't believe anything else, call you local FSIDO and ask. See what they say. They might agree with you, you never know.

Why put a pilot in the position that he/she could loose their ratings? That is that person's lively hood AND it cost them a lot of time and a large sum of money to reach that position.

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

[base935 0]

I agree with boyd38off. And I would love to hear other opinions concerning this. That's what makes dropzone.com such an excellent resource for all of us that love parachutes!

The wording is even more clear than I imagined. When reading this, it specifies that you can't let someone exit with a single harness/dual parachute system, unless it's TSO'd, 120 days, etc... It doesn't necessarily say that you can't let someone out unless they have the 1/2 system. What about the 1/1, the way it reads?

In a nutshell, what this states is that a pilot cannot allow anyone to exit an airplane with a two canopy, one parachute system, unless it complies with the TSO/120days/etc. It does not prohibit a pilot to drop someone with an "unapproved" single canopy/single harness system.


Sec. 105.43

Use of single-harness, dual-parachute systems.

No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows:
(a) The main parachute must have been packed within 120 days before the date of its use of a certificated parachute rigger, the person making the next jump with that parachute, or a non-certificated person under the direct supervision of a certification parachute rigger.
(b) The reserve parachute must have been packed by a certificated parachute rigger--
(1) Within 120 days before the date of its use, if its canopy, shroud, and harness are composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or similar synthetic fiber or material that is substantially resistant to damage from mold, mildew, and other fungi, and other rotting agents propagated in a moist environment; or
(2) Within 60 days before the date of its use, if it is composed of any amount of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber, or material not specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device.

Just like if you have an AAD, it has to be maintained. It is illegal if it is expired by one day, and the pilot could face actions due to this.

And on a side note, jumping without a reserve would be foolish, when your main is a small, twitchy, unpredictable opening, cross-braced swoop machine. At that point, you are jumping a reserve, and if that fun canopy opens, its a bonus. A fixed-object system is essentially your reserve. With both systems, if the reserve fails, you have the rest of your life to deal with it.

I'm looking for anyone to post the exact FAR that would prohibit the single harness/single paracute system. I do not endanger my life unnecessarily, and I personally feel that wiht the right conditions, a single harness/single canopy system is FAR more reliable and "safe" than the skydiving systems that many of you are familiar with.

Gravity Research Institute

[diablopilot 2]

What's the point? Why do you need to make a jump from an airplane with a BASE rig?

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

[billvon 2,381]

>Why do you need to make a jump from an airplane with a BASE rig?

It's a good way to gain experience jumping and landing with a BASE system. I made my first few jumps on my first BASE rig (a modified Swift container with a Pursuit 215+tailpocket, mesh slider and 42" PC) from a King Air, and thus gained confidence in the system before I used it for BASE for the first time.

A certified BASE rig with a removable reserve is an even better method.

[boyd38off 0]

Quote

What's the point? Why do you need to make a jump from an airplane with a BASE rig?

Not the point of this discussion... Nobody needs to. Just talkin' the legality of it.

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out and shouting,
".... holy crap....what a ride!"

[boyd38off 0]

Quote

........
Why put a pilot in the position that he/she could loose their ratings? That is that person's lively hood AND it cost them a lot of time and a large sum of money to reach that position.

I'm just putting myself in the shoes of a pilot with some friends and a legal jump ship and landing permission. I'm not implying that this should be a dropzone activity.

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out and shouting,
".... holy crap....what a ride!"

[kris2extreme 0]

Quote

Also - anyone know of any pilot (or jumper) EVER prosecuted for this since the current wording of the FAR?

prosecuted? No.

Investigated by the FAA and case(s) closed due to lack of evidence? Yes.

[diablopilot 2]

See, I think it does lead to the point. The point is It's a bad idea, since we eventually are governed by public perception of us, and what we do.

I do agree with you that the text may be a slight bit gray about the activity being verboten, but I don't think a FISO, or administrative law judge would let that slow them down from chewing the ass off any pilot that let this go on.

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

[base935 0]

Even if you have no interest in gaining the experience that I have gathered by jumping fixed objects hundreds of times, with a single harness/single container system, built in my basement- that's cool.

However, other than the apparent legality of jumping these systems out of an aircraft- what is the objection if a group of highly experienced jumpers, designing and testing this equipment in a remote area of private property, with the proper ATC radio calls, and paramedics at the ready, just in case? It is, after all, my life, and even if you don't understand the pushing of the envelope of parachute technology, there are others that do. And you should be grateful that there are jumpers that are willing to take (percieved) additional risks, to make the gear that you choose to jump, safer.

Gravity Research Institute

[matthewcline 0]

Yeah, I relized I forgot to say UNLESS you attached a reserve after I re-read it. You would think after 21 years of wearing that style of system I would have re-membered.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[freakflyer9999 1]

First of all, FAR's are not laws. Laws are written by legislatures. FAR's are regulations and are written by the same body that also gets to interpret them. Numerous posts have quoted the Advisory Circular that you have continuously chosen to ignore. No matter when the AC was written and no matter which version of the relative FAR was in effect at the time, the AC has not been superceded. The AC is the FAA's interpretation of the regulation and again, it is the FAA that gets to interpret its own regulations. There are some appeal processes, but the FAA will first pass judgement.

With all that said, if you want to try it, then go for it. The only way that you will get caught is if someone squeals or if there is a fatality. Make sure that the spot is near a well-known base object and let everyone assume that any fatality is base related. Most likely the FAA would never be asked to be involved in the investigation.

[brucet7 0]

I found this part of the FARs interesting and while it does not speak directly to the issue, by implication it shows the intent of the FAR.

"Sec. 105.49 Foreign parachutists and equipment


(a) 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 with an unapproved foreign parachute system unless--


(1) The parachute system is worn by a foreign parachutist who is the owner of that system.

(2) The parachute system is of a single-harness dual parachute type."

If a foreign jumper must wear a 1/2 system, then I would assume a nonforeign jumper would as well.

Looking at the parts of the FAR quoted already, I think it means you have two choices. A 1/2 system or a tandom system, one or the other. .43 covering the former, .45 covering the latter.

POPS #10623; SOS #1672

[PhreeZone 14]

Even if you wanted to jump a 1/1 system it still needs to be TSO'd to meet the "certified" clause outlined in the FAR's. There are a few types of these you can buy right off the shelf, they usually have rounds in them though.

The FAR's spell out that to make an intentional jump you have to have a single harness dual pararachute system. For non-intentional jumps (aka emergencies) then it makes the allowance for a Single harness, single canopy container but it then clarifies and says that all components must be certified. That means TSO'd harness and canopy.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

It would be great if someone got a positive interpretation of this from an FAA office.

Now that is some funny shit.

[Bertt 0]

I might be off base here; I'm not a base jumper or a lawyer, but I thought I had heard of base jumpers training by jumping from a hot air balloon. A balloon is an aircraft, so wouldn't the same regulation apply?

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[AggieDave 6]

A lot of those were BASE style jumps with BASE gear from a tethered hot air balloon. From what I understand is that being tethered the balloon wasn't considered in flight. I think that, once again, is up to the local office.

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

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

First of all, FAR's are not laws. Laws are written by legislatures. FAR's are regulations and are written by the same body that also gets to interpret them. Numerous posts have quoted the Advisory Circular that you have continuously chosen to ignore. No matter when the AC was written and no matter which version of the relative FAR was in effect at the time, the AC has not been superceded. The AC is the FAA's interpretation of the regulation and again, it is the FAA that gets to interpret its own regulations. There are some appeal processes, but the FAA will first pass judgement.

Regulations issued by an administrative agency (such as the FAA) have the force of law. That's because Congress has the authority to create administrative agencies, and it also has the authority to enact general legislation which, in turn, empowers an Agency to issue regulations to give specific force and effect to the legislation. And that's what gives the regulations the force of law.

The administrative agency only passes on the first 1 or 2 levels of appeals. Once those levels are exhausted, you then have the right to take further appeals right through the "regular" court system. Oh, and don't cynically presume that the courts will always rubber-stamp the Agency's decision on appeal - if the Agency or and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) gets it wrong, courts are most willing to say so, and they do.

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

A lot of those were BASE style jumps with BASE gear from a tethered hot air balloon. From what I understand is that being tethered the balloon wasn't considered in flight. I think that, once again, is up to the local office.

Totally off topic, but I still remember the tethered hot air balloon fiasco at the 1997 WFFC. Does anyone else? No, no one died from that, I think the winds were strong enough that the flames from the burner caught on the balloon fabric and burned enough of it that it couldn't stay up.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[councilman24 36]

The feds can't write. The old version of 105 prohibited it. If you read the NPRM to change it and the final rule you find the intent of the changes. The intent to allow a 1/1 is not there.

The newly proposed 105 leaves tandem mains at a 120 day repack with everything else going to 180 days. They didn't mean that either.

AC-105 has lots of problems. Under it many of the reserve/harness combinations in the air are illegal. (Yes, illegal as in a violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations, as interpreted for the FAA employees by AC-105) This is an example of the regulations going the otherway. Seemingly outlawing something probably never intended on being outlawed.

You aren't going to find what you want. The entire body of documentation, historic 105's, AC-105's, NPRM, and final rules have to be taken as a whole. If you try hard, and I couldn't find it yesterday, you can find every document back to the original Civil Aviation regulations on line.

They took out the must language because it isn't a must anymore, the other option is tandem. Not with the intent of allowing no reserves.

If you want a prohibition we'll cover you under the reg that prevents pilots from dropping anything from an airplane that's a hazard to people of stuff on the ground.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[freakflyer9999 1]

Quote

Quote

A lot of those were BASE style jumps with BASE gear from a tethered hot air balloon. From what I understand is that being tethered the balloon wasn't considered in flight. I think that, once again, is up to the local office.

Totally off topic, but I still remember the tethered hot air balloon fiasco at the 1997 WFFC. Does anyone else? No, no one died from that, I think the winds were strong enough that the flames from the burner caught on the balloon fabric and burned enough of it that it couldn't stay up.

Yea...I remember sitting in front of my tent drinking a beer because the winds were too high for me to be jumping. The tethered balloon was at an angle due to the wind and the flames starting up the piece of fabric below the actual balloon envelope.

I don't remember if the jumper actually jumped or not though. I don't think that he did.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Even if you have no interest in gaining the experience that I have gathered by jumping fixed objects hundreds of times, with a single harness/single container system, built in my basement- that's cool.

However, other than the apparent legality of jumping these systems out of an aircraft- what is the objection if a group of highly experienced jumpers, designing and testing this equipment in a remote area of private property, with the proper ATC radio calls, and paramedics at the ready, just in case? It is, after all, my life, and even if you don't understand the pushing of the envelope of parachute technology, there are others that do. And you should be grateful that there are jumpers that are willing to take (percieved) additional risks, to make the gear that you choose to jump, safer.

You don't know me so well.

I have jumped a complete non TSO'd base system from an aircraft in the US legally (no gray areas either) and I think if you put your mind to it, you could figure out a way to do it as well.

If you're really looking to further the research in parachute equipment, then kudo's to you, but I see no advantage to be gained from jumping your systems from an airplane, vs. an object if you're not going to be taking advantage of a reserve.

Now if you're just looking for the gung ho feeing of giving the finger to the "man" (FAA), I can identify with the sentiment, but I can't support it.

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

[riggerrob 558]

There are two problems with your proposal.

First, most BASE harnesses are not "approved (manufatured under an FAA TSO quality control system).

Secondly, most BASE rigs do not contain reserves as required for intentional jumps.