Skydiving Airplanes and Pilots Operating Away From The DZ

[cchandler 0]

Tom Buchanan brings up some very good points. I have, for many years, attempted to educate skydivers and jump pilots on the FAR's.

One regulation that seems to be frequently misunderstood is FAR 119.1(e)(6). It states that for a commercial skydiving flight to be an exception to Air Carrier Regulations (FAR Part 135 or 121), the flight must be nonstop and conducted within a 25-statute-mile radius of the airport of takeoff. Nearly all skydiving flights are commercial, even those in a "club" environment.

Additionally, FAR Part 91.107(a)(3) states that each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing. An exception is provided in FAR Part 91.107(a)(3)(ii). It states that a person may use the floor of the aircraft as a seat, provided that the person is on board for the purpose of engaging in sport parachuting.

Is it legal to fly more than 25 miles from the departure airport with skydivers on board? Yes, but only if the operation is not commercial, or the operator holds an Air Carrier Certificate and is approved for the operation.

Is it legal to land at an airport other than the airport of departure with skydivers on board? Yes, but only if the operation is not commercial AND the skydivers are occupying approved seats, or the operator holds an Air Carrier Certificate and is approved for the operation (seat requirement still exists).

Is it legal to fly 30 miles from the departure airport with skydivers and paying Tandems on board to make a jump into a neighboring airport? No, even if the jump is aborted and the plane returns to the departure airport, or the operator holds an Air Carrier Certificate and is approved for the operation.

Is it legal to land at an airport other than the airport of departure with a paid demo team on board? No, even if the jumpers occupied approved seats, unless the operator holds an Air Carrier Certificate and is approved for the operation.

If the operation is commercial, all flights must be within 25 miles of the airport of departure and must be non-stop, or an Air Carrier Certificate is required.

The approved seating requirement only comes into play for non- jumping flights, and then, the flight must be non-commercial, or the operator must hold an Air Carrier Certificate and be approved for the operation.

Additionally, FAR Part 91.223 requires turbine aircraft to have approved Terrain Awarness instrumentation. An exception to this requirement exists for parachuting operations when conducted entirely within a 50 nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight operations began.

Interesting to note are the different mileage restrictions (25 statute miles for FAR Part 119.1 vs 50 nautical miles for FAR Part 91.223).

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Is it legal to fly more than 25 miles from the departure airport with skydivers on board? Yes, but only if the operation is not commercial, or the operator holds an Air Carrier Certificate and is approved for the operation.

Is it legal to land at an airport other than the airport of departure with skydivers on board? Yes, but only if the operation is not commercial AND the skydivers are occupying approved seats, or the operator holds an Air Carrier Certificate and is approved for the operation (seat requirement still exists).

I guess it's just too bad, then, if an accident or weather closes down your intended airport after you've taken off and you have to divert 25+ miles elsewhere.

The PIC can ALWAYS invoke emergency authority.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cchandler 0]

91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

Deviation from the FAR's, as required, is approved. However, a person may be required to explain the deviation.

One would expect the emergency authority to be used for such, and not a carte blanc attempt to deviate from the regulations.

[gdmusumeci 0]

Quote

Outside of skydiving, I've been aware of it being "okay" for folks who own a priviate aircraft (operating under Part 91) to "share the cost" of a trip in their airplane with others... for example, I own a C172 and hold a Private Pilot's License. A couple of buddies and I decide it would be fun to fly from Inyokern, CA to Tahoe for the weekend. We jump in my plane Friday, fly up to Tahoe, come back Sunday, split the cost equally for the fuel and tie-down fees and, the way I understand things, we're "okay". Someone more versed in this, please correct me if I'm wrong

You are almost (but not quite) correct. The regulatory guidance for this is spelled out in FAR 61.113. This section discusses the operating limitations for a private pilot in regards to flying in furtherance of a business. Specifically, 91.113(a) says no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying "passengers or property for compensation or hire." The pilot must be very careful not to fall afoul of this: you can't take passengers to places you weren't going to go to anyways, and you can't get paid for it. Even a commercial pilot can't hold out to the public: for that you (often) need an operating certificate. This is a huge mess, so I won't go there....

Anyways, as long as that's satisfied, 91.113(c) says:

Quote

(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

So if you (as PIC) take three friends in your T210 out to Tahoe, it doesn't matter if the cost is split equally -- as long as the pilot in command pays at least their pro rata share of the operating expenses. Your rich friend can pay for three-quarters of the flight as long as you pay your quarter share.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

This post is not directed at that flight, but rather is designed to begin a dialog on what we as jumpers can and can’t do, and should or should not expect from the drop zone and aircraft owners.

I don't want to belittle, in any way, the dedicated people who work at the FAA. They have a job to do, and they do it very well. But ... I think that the regulations have gotten to the point that they mostly benefit lawyers and whuffo citizens who expect the government to ensure that (1) we will eventually achieve zero risk in everything we do, and (2) that when anything goes wrong, some regulation will make it perfectly clear who they can blame.

I'm not a pilot, or a DZO; just a jumper. For me the answer is quite simple. I sign and initial the waiver at every DZ. I think the waiver says that I expect nothing. All I want is for them to take me to altitude and let me jump out of their plane. If it's safe enough for the pilot, then it's safe enough for me.

It's really about what pilots, aircraft owners, and DZO's can and can't do, isn't it?

[cchandler 0]

Quote

..... whuffo citizens who expect the government to ensure that.............

That's the whole point of an Air Carrier Certificate!!!

It provides for a known level of safety and performance for the general public. The FAA has determined (with the dedicated help of constantly crashing jump planes) that flying in jump planes should be limited to local flights. Take a look at accidents in turbine jump planes. Most happened on cross-country repositioning flights!!!!!

It took the skydiving industry to turn the King Air from one of the safest turbine airplanes in the sky to one of the most dangerous.

[quade 3]

Quote

If it's safe enough for the pilot, then it's safe enough for me.

Actually the FAA is amazingly open to what people can do in aircraft if they are by themselves. It's when the pilot takes additional people on the aircraft that the rules become tighter and tighter.

Obviously they don't want you killing yourself, but it's OTHER people the FAA is mostly looking out for.

Look at the entire way the Airman Certificate process is set up.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

..... whuffo citizens who expect the government to ensure that.............

That's the whole point of an Air Carrier Certificate!!!

That's not what I said!

You left out the part about ZERO RISK [:D]

Quote

It provides for a known level of safety and performance for the general public. The FAA has determined (with the dedicated help of constantly crashing jump planes) that flying in jump planes should be limited to local flights. Take a look at accidents in turbine jump planes. Most happened on cross-country repositioning flights!!!!!

It took the skydiving industry to turn the King Air from one of the safest turbine airplanes in the sky to one of the most dangerous.

My point is that I and many jumpers I know think the King Air is SAFE ENOUGH because if they make it much safer we won't be jumping out of it anymore!

[stratostar 5]

Quote

Obviously they don't want you killing yourself, but it's OTHER people the FAA is mostly looking out for.

They don't care if you kill yourself, that is why the FAR's read you must wear a TSO'ed dual parachute system in sport jumping, BUT no where dose it say you have to open them, BUT you can't land on anyone or damage thier property when you go in or the pilot get;s it for the endangerment to people or property on the ground, not murder.

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

[gdmusumeci 0]

Quote

...when anything goes wrong, some regulation will make it perfectly clear who they can blame.

That regulation already exists. It's Part 91, Section 3(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations. I can quote it from memory: "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft."

Put simply... accidents are essentially always pilot error at some level. That is cold and unforgiving, yes, but that's the way aviation is.

[quade 3]

Quote

They don't care if you kill yourself . . .

That's a bit glib. Yes, they actually do care.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[stratostar 5]

The face should have told you I was only being a smartass. Seeing how you post your having a shitty day, I was hoping you would laugh or at least giggle some.

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

[scdrnr 0]

Quote

One regulation that seems to be frequently misunderstood is FAR 119.1(e)(6). It states that for a commercial skydiving flight to be an exception to Air Carrier Regulations (FAR Part 135 or 121), the flight must be nonstop and conducted within a 25-statute-mile radius of the airport of takeoff. Nearly all skydiving flights are commercial, even those in a "club" environment. ***

While this is true, it is important to remember that just because a commercial pilot is being paid to fly, this does not automatically make the flight commercial.

A commercial pilot may be paid to fly someone's owned or leased aircraft anywhere as long as he is not "providing" the aircraft and no passengers (other than the owner/lessor) is paying more than the pro-rata share of the costs of the flight (which may include the pilots pay). I have a letter from the FAA that says so.

The FAA even allows the operator to hire out the plane with pilot for compensation in some instances, in accordance with the unwritten 4 to 20 rule, which basically means that less than 4 clients probably is not holding out, more than 20 probably is, and anything in between will be taken on a case by case basis.

As for the "club" argument, if everyone in the club can be shown to be directly linked to the ownership or lease of the plane, then a club load would not be a commercial operation. In this case the club may have a non-compensated private pilot fly, or they may hire a commercial pilot to fly. I know the FAA has ruled against a number of clubs on this, but there are many that do operate this way with FAA blessing. FAA interpretations vary widely on a case by case basis.

Is it legal to land at an airport other than the airport of departure with a paid demo team on board? No, even if the jumpers occupied approved seats, unless the operator holds an Air Carrier Certificate and is approved for the operation.

Quote

If the demo team owns or leases the aircraft they may hire a commercial pilot to fly them anywhere. This is not a commercial operation. This falls under flights conducted in the furtherance of a business.

As for the approved seats, my interpretation of "engaging in sport parachuting" means you are ready, willing, and able to make an intentional jump from the aircraft, even if you decide not to for nearly any reason.

Additionally, FAR Part 91.223 requires turbine aircraft to have approved Terrain Awarness instrumentation. An exception to this requirement exists for parachuting operations when conducted entirely within a 50 nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight operations began. ***

The rule applies to aircraft configured with 6 or more passenger seats. So I'd argue that if jumpers are using the floor, then the airplane is not subject to 91.223 at all- they are exempt before the exemption.

[relyon 0]

Quote

Additionally, FAR Part 91.223 requires turbine aircraft to have approved Terrain Awarness instrumentation. An exception to this requirement exists for parachuting operations when conducted entirely within a 50 nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight operations began.

Turbine airplanes must have a approved terrain awarness and warning system. Other turbine aircraft are not mentioned in 91.233.

Bob

[cchandler 0]

Quote

Quote

Additionally, FAR Part 91.223 requires turbine aircraft to have approved Terrain Awarness instrumentation. An exception to this requirement exists for parachuting operations when conducted entirely within a 50 nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight operations began.

Turbine airplanes must have a approved terrain awarness and warning system. Other turbine aircraft are not mentioned in 91.233.

Bob

Correct

[737driver 0]

That is not correct.... if a DZ put a sign up saying the aircraft is going from A to B sign up here for a ride...

The FAA could hang them that would be a commercial operation and need an certificate under 135

[skyberdyber 0]

Nobody said anything about putting up a sign, which you are referring to "holding out" to the public.
If I take a group of jumpers and share expenses, even if I am on the way to do a commercial operation at the destination, it is legal because I own the aircraft. I just have to be able to prove that I paid my portion or more of the flight's expense.

http://www.skydiveatlanta.com
http://www.musiccityskydiving.com