JerryBaumchen 1,047 #51 March 16, 2008 Hi Phil, Would you shoot me an email off of this site? I want to discuss your audits. Thanks, JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #52 March 16, 2008 The meetings you are thinking of were the CSPA Transport Canada committee meetings in the early nineties. Have you been skydiving that long? Ian Flanagan, the individual you have decided to trash without naming, was in fact, on record as being against fighting transport on this issue. If you were around the sport back then you would no doubt remember his statements at the time that he thought it was a lost cause and that we would be better off insuring that Transport kept their noses out of the parachuting side of things. At the Annual meeting in Pitt Meadows BC around that time (I can't remember the exact year) there were two motions on the floor. One was to express support for Transport's efforts to regulate the sport and one to resist their efforts; the one to oppose Transport was motioned by Pacific Skydivers as articulated by Ian Flanagan. So your theory about him changing his spots is in fact wrong. __________________________________________________ on the 90's meetings Sounds like you're contradicting yourself here, on one hand you say Flanagan recognized fighting transport on commercial status of skydiving aircraft was a lost cause and wasn't going to fight it, worrying instead about Transport's forays into parachuting endeavors specifically; and on the other you say he made a motion to oppose Transport on the commercial status of skydiving a/c and all it entails. Where the opposing view, held by a dzo from Ontario was that CSPA should apply for a waiver such as was granted to a/c used for towing gliders at gliding schools/centres.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #53 March 16, 2008 It does not make any distinction between jumping from an aircraft and any other type of parachuting. The bit about needing permission to jump in uncontrolled airspace just made ground launching and BASE jumping illegal without a permit. __________________________________________________ I think Transport would be out of their jurisdiction with this. Someone flying down the side of a hill within 50 feet of the slope is certainly not a hazard to other a/c; ditto for someone launching off a 30-story building in downtown. Besides which, I doubt anyone climbing a tower or building planning to jump off without permission really cares if Transport is for or against it. I have to admit, the restrictions on jumps into uncontrolled airspace are more troubling to me than most of the other stuff. There is the possibility of jumping 2-person ultralites or hang-gliders - where you are getting out low and have perfect visibility - they really want you to talk to TC by radio before you jump? Or jumping into cottages, etc. This is restrictive. On the other hand, while we don't need a specific approval for a demo into an airshow, do we still need CSPA ins. That would have to be changed so we don't need the approval first, I think. And if we don't need a specific approval for an airshow, is that why they expanded the wdi requirements which only applied to students and demos before? The requirement for wdi's was always on the approval they sent you.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
174fps 1 #54 March 16, 2008 QuoteIt does not make any distinction between jumping from an aircraft and any other type of parachuting. The bit about needing permission to jump in uncontrolled airspace just made ground launching and BASE jumping illegal without a permit. __________________________________________________ 603.36 This Division applies in respect of a parachute descent conducted by a person from an aircraft in flight. That looks like a clear distinction to me Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites packerboy 3 #55 March 16, 2008 Quote It does not make any distinction between jumping from an aircraft and any other type of parachuting. The bit about needing permission to jump in uncontrolled airspace just made ground launching and base jumping illegal without a permit. I'm not going back to read it again, but I'm sure I remember reading several times the term "Parachute descent from an aircraft in flight" -------------------------------------------------- In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 558 #56 March 16, 2008 You are missing a subtle difference between regulating airplanes versus regulating skydivers. A long time ago, Mr. Flanagan submitted to TC's efforts to regulate jump planes. Specifically, the notion that all jump planes in Canada must hold commercial registration, employ commercial pilots, etc. At the same time, Mr. Flanagan - and the rest of CSPA - discouraged Transport Canada from regulating skydivers (after they left the airplane). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 558 #57 March 16, 2008 I have to admit, the restrictions on jumps into uncontrolled airspace are more troubling to me than most of the other stuff. There is the possibility of jumping 2-person ultralites or hang-gliders - where you are getting out low and have perfect visibility - they really want you to talk to TC by radio before you jump? Or jumping into cottages, etc. This is restrictive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CARS have always tried to restrict non-NOTAMed jumps into cottages, etc. Non-NOTAMed, "bandit" jumps away from a regular DZs have always been illegal. The new regulation does not change this. The primary goal was to eliminate surprises for IFR - read commercial airliners - traffic. Let's face it, scheduled airliners are the only aviation sector that generates enough profit to fund Transport Canada, Nav Canada and a million federal civil servants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 558 #58 March 16, 2008 I have to admit, the restrictions on jumps into uncontrolled airspace are more troubling to me than most of the other stuff. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed. NPA 99 148 uses some odd wording, to the effect that jump pilots must contact ATS before dropping in Class E airspace. The contradiction is that Class E airspace implies "empty control tower." That means limited air traffic control service, barely enough to provide separation for (usually higher) IFR traffic (read scheduled airliners). For example, Pitt Meadows is Class D air space during normal business hours (dawn to mid night). After mid night, controllers go home and it reverts to Class E. Think "empty control tower." In Class E air space, pilots are expected to announce their intentions and are responsible for their own separation from other traffic. Most Canadian DZs operate in Class G airspace that has limited ATC, maybe only "flight following." Flight following is only available "as work load permits." IOW On busy Sunday afternoons, ATC are too busy to separate all the "Sunday fliers" in Class G air space. If you adhere to the letter of NPA 99 148, we will never be able to jump into Class E air space, because we will never be able to contact air traffic controllers, who don't care! A silly clause. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skypuppy 1 #59 March 17, 2008 CARS have always tried to restrict non-NOTAMed jumps into cottages, etc. Non-NOTAMed, "bandit" jumps away from a regular DZs have always been illegal. The new regulation does not change this. The primary goal was to eliminate surprises for IFR - read commercial airliners - traffic. Let's face it, scheduled airliners are the only aviation sector that generates enough profit to fund Transport Canada, Nav Canada and a million federal civil servants. __________________________________________________ Like I said, I never considered a jump into uncontrolled airspace, not over a built-up area (cottages for instance are usually on lakes) into a cottage where there is no large open-air assembly of people, to be a bandit jump. It was just a jump into uncontrolled airspace... That's how many of my water jumps have been done. And usually we don't go high enough to interfere with commercial air traffic - for one thing, if we did we'd end up getting up into controlled airspace again. Most of these jumps would be below 4000. I have no problem requiring clearance in controlled airspace, or for a 'demo', but if it's uncontrolled and not for a huge crowd or built-up area, it's uncontrolled to my mind.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites aphid 0 #60 March 17, 2008 > but if it's uncontrolled and not for a huge crowd or > built-up area, it's uncontrolled to my mind. Rob... you jump in Ontario & probably occasionally in Quebec. If you ever leave "the centre of the known universe", you'll realize that most on-and-off-airport DZ's in the rest of Canada are in "uncontrolled airspace". We talk to ATC so that IFR traffic in-bound can be alerted and possibly re-routed, and also so that Centre can assist us with "unidentified VFR traffic" transiting through our areas. We've done it for years, and believe me, it is a tremendous benefit and has saved our asses on more than a few occasions. John PS: Why don't we take this back to the CSPA-chat list where it really belongs? (Not here on FaceBookMcJumpersDeeZee.com) J Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AdD 1 #61 March 17, 2008 I think this is all a lot of BS. I'm a Canadian and I thought that the sky was falling in from reading some comments online until I read the NPA. None of the issues of regulation will seriously affect skydiving in Canada. If I'm wrong please correct me. http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegServ/Affairs/carac/NPAs/GOFR/Archives/jun00/2000209.htmLife is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pchapman 261 #62 March 17, 2008 QuoteI think this is all a lot of BS. I'm a Canadian and I thought that the sky was falling in from reading some comments online until I read the NPA.http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegServ/Affairs/carac/NPAs/GOFR/Archives/jun00/2000209.htm At least you cared enough to read up on things a little. In the beginning it was tough for people to get the word out and get people to understand the implications of the situation. There weren't many involved in the debate earlier, so there were few opinions to rely on. Some arguments carried more weight than others. Remember that nobody knew what TC was going to publish in the Gazette, or how it would vary from their old documents. TC wouldn't even discuss the matter with CSPA! So until about 3 days ago, nobody knew for sure what we'd have to fight. EDIT: I just noticed, the link you posted isn't to the actual NPA as published. That's a completely different NPA, about the 180 day repack cycle that has been in place a long time. (Except for some issues with demo.) So now I'm not sure if you are thinking about something totally different than NPA 99-148, or you just posted the wrong URL. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pchapman 261 #63 March 17, 2008 John's point is valid. If you are regularly jumping from higher altitudes in fully class G, it sure would be nice to have some contact with ATC if big planes aren't just going through class E somewhere else. To me near Toronto, Class G is something that exists only below 2200' or even just 700'. Skypuppy and I would be thinking about why the heck one would need to contact ATC for a hop and pop from 3000' (assuming it is class G) on a one-off basis. See and avoid VFR rules should be sufficient. You could fly aerobatics or fly a hang glider or do other things that aren't always easy to spot, in that same airspace. So for some aspects, the proposed class G rules do seem to go too far. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites aphid 0 #64 March 18, 2008 Hi Peter, > why the heck one would need to contact ATC for a > hop and pop from 3000' (assuming it is class G) on > a one-off basis. One-off jumps (Demo's excepted) have not required an OC, a commercial aircraft, or even a commercial pilot. You simply get on a friends plane, open the door, and land at your (or your folks) cottage. I've checked with my TC inspector, and he assures me this is the case provided there is no money changing hands (beyond fuel & very limited expense-share). I believe the NPA is to cover active, licensed DropZones, with additional emphasis on the student activity. My earlier comments were all in response to the complaints raised by the McJumpers to that point. Nobody had brought up the student activities, yet. Now that they have, I'll be studying those portions a bit more. Although from a purely selfish motive - I don't run a DZ or own a school - I just have an OC and an aircraft so the folks at the local DZ have a bit of lifting-power, so this is the area where I would expect the DZO's to weigh-in strongly. Odd we still haven't heard from any of them. John Oh, I almost forgot... our OC indicates we must contact Vancouver Centre only as we break through 4000' MSL, and once again one minute prior to the exits at points above that altitude. Vernon is a busy little airport, and even ATC could care less about low-level activity here whether we interfere with each other or not. We do maintain a "listen" to Centre's frequency with the second COM in case they want to give us further information in the climb. And one last thing - on our first flight of the day, they quite often issue us one transponder code for the entire day. They do the same with the Glider tow-plane as well. J Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rayf 0 #65 March 25, 2008 there was actually a little write-up in the winnipeg sun about this on monday... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites packerboy 3 #66 March 26, 2008 I think this is all a lot of BS. I'm a Canadian and I thought that the sky was falling in from reading some comments online until I read the NPA. None of the issues of regulation will seriously affect skydiving in Canada. If I'm wrong please correct me. http://www.tc.gc.ca/...es/jun00/2000209.htm ------------------------------------------------------------ This is where I'm at. I'll just sit back and see what happens. My MP is pretty much useless in this case anyway since he only votes to break ties in the house (SOH Peter Milliken). If this bill splits the house, the sky really IS falling. Of course you never know whats going to happen with our current clusterf^&k of a federal government. -------------------------------------------------- In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MajorDad 0 #67 March 26, 2008 QuoteThis is where I'm at. I'll just sit back and see what happens. My MP is pretty much useless in this case anyway since he only votes to break ties in the house (SOH Peter Milliken). If this bill splits the house, the sky really IS falling. Of course you never know whats going to happen with our current clusterf^&k of a federal government. Have to disagree with you on this one on a couple of points. First off the federal government should no more regulate skydivers after they leave the aircraft any more than they should regulate scuba divers who use boats or skiers who use helicopters. While the NPA should not adversly affect most existing CSPA Operations, it may be impacted by overzealous Transport Canada Inspectors or may be a problem for new operations starting up. Either way it is leveraging the issue of protection of the First Jump Student into regulating a voluntary High Risk Sport. Transport Canada also seems to be heavy handed in their approach in that they are ignoring mandated Risk Assessments and minimizing dissent to portray concensus on the NPA as presented. CSPA has posted a couple of draft letters on the website at http://www.cspa.ca/en/npa.htm. These are currently being reviewed/discussed on the CPSA.Chat group but it is a start. The Important one is to be sent to Transport Canada as they have to collect and respond to the concerns raised by the industry and the public as part of this process. That is why there has been so much discussion on CSPA.chat so that the points being raised are based on fact and logic as opposed to emotion and BS. The other letter is for your MP. Even though in your case, he only votes in the case of a tie in the House, he can speak in caucus and in the back rooms. He also influences the House in that he calls on who speaks next. While I dont see the NPA as influencing my skydiving career as I stick to the BSR's and can always head to the states, if the NPA is adopted in its present form there is a potential to set up a regime that can erode the sport in Canada. It would be sad if the impact was only the larger centers could continue operation and all the smaller ones fade through attrition. If nothing else, CSPA is taking a stand and making it easy for Members to respond by providing letters with envelopes to send in. People who do nothing more than sign it and put it in the mailbox will help the effort. Please take the time to do at least that. Regards, Phil Major Dad CSPA D-579 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SivaGanesha 2 #68 March 26, 2008 QuoteMy MP is pretty much useless in this case anyway since he only votes to break ties in the house (SOH Peter Milliken). If this bill splits the house, the sky really IS falling... Is this a bill that will be voted on? Or is it simply a regulation that may ultimately come into force through an administrative procedure without a vote in the House of Commons?"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MajorDad 0 #69 March 26, 2008 QuoteIs this a bill that will be voted on? Or is it simply a regulation that may ultimately come into force through an administrative procedure without a vote in the House of Commons? The CSPA information on this can be found at http://www.cspa.ca/en/npa. In short, the NPA was published 15 March and interested parties have 60 days in which to respond to the designated person within Transport Canada (i.e. by mid May). Transport Canada has to respond to the points raised. Depending on the issues raised, the NPA can then be pulled completely (which is what CSPA wants), modified and re-published (re-doing step 1) or slightly modify it if there are no significant (to them) issues in Gazette 2. (Edited: this is authorized by the Order In Council Andrew talks about). Once it is in Gazette 2 it is a done deal and we have to live with the good, the bad and the ugly. Transport Canada was intending for this to come into full effect 1 Jan 2009. The intent of engaging MPs was to work that front as well. Regards Major Dad CSPA D-579 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #70 March 26, 2008 Quote Is this a bill that will be voted on? Or is it simply a regulation that may ultimately come into force through an administrative procedure without a vote in the House of Commons? It is a change to existing regs (the CARS) that will be passed by Order in Council. Effectively that means it needs Cabinet approval. For something like this I am pretty sure the Cabinet members let each other run their own departments. The minister of amateur sport could theoretically take issue, but he is typically way down the pecking order from the Minister of Transport, so that is unlikely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SivaGanesha 2 #71 April 7, 2008 QuoteThe CSPA information on this can be found at http://www.cspa.ca/en/npa It seems that there is a minor problem with this information in the following document: Regulatory Letter The letter says 'Dear Sir'. It actually seems that 'Dear Madam' would be more appropriate as the current Acting Chief is a woman, Lynn Doucet, according to the following site: Regulatory Affairs I'm sure the sexism is unintentional but it might be good to change the form letter as I'm sure being sexist isn't the best way to win favor with a woman in a position to make a decision about our sport."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
packerboy 3 #55 March 16, 2008 Quote It does not make any distinction between jumping from an aircraft and any other type of parachuting. The bit about needing permission to jump in uncontrolled airspace just made ground launching and base jumping illegal without a permit. I'm not going back to read it again, but I'm sure I remember reading several times the term "Parachute descent from an aircraft in flight" -------------------------------------------------- In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #56 March 16, 2008 You are missing a subtle difference between regulating airplanes versus regulating skydivers. A long time ago, Mr. Flanagan submitted to TC's efforts to regulate jump planes. Specifically, the notion that all jump planes in Canada must hold commercial registration, employ commercial pilots, etc. At the same time, Mr. Flanagan - and the rest of CSPA - discouraged Transport Canada from regulating skydivers (after they left the airplane). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #57 March 16, 2008 I have to admit, the restrictions on jumps into uncontrolled airspace are more troubling to me than most of the other stuff. There is the possibility of jumping 2-person ultralites or hang-gliders - where you are getting out low and have perfect visibility - they really want you to talk to TC by radio before you jump? Or jumping into cottages, etc. This is restrictive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CARS have always tried to restrict non-NOTAMed jumps into cottages, etc. Non-NOTAMed, "bandit" jumps away from a regular DZs have always been illegal. The new regulation does not change this. The primary goal was to eliminate surprises for IFR - read commercial airliners - traffic. Let's face it, scheduled airliners are the only aviation sector that generates enough profit to fund Transport Canada, Nav Canada and a million federal civil servants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #58 March 16, 2008 I have to admit, the restrictions on jumps into uncontrolled airspace are more troubling to me than most of the other stuff. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed. NPA 99 148 uses some odd wording, to the effect that jump pilots must contact ATS before dropping in Class E airspace. The contradiction is that Class E airspace implies "empty control tower." That means limited air traffic control service, barely enough to provide separation for (usually higher) IFR traffic (read scheduled airliners). For example, Pitt Meadows is Class D air space during normal business hours (dawn to mid night). After mid night, controllers go home and it reverts to Class E. Think "empty control tower." In Class E air space, pilots are expected to announce their intentions and are responsible for their own separation from other traffic. Most Canadian DZs operate in Class G airspace that has limited ATC, maybe only "flight following." Flight following is only available "as work load permits." IOW On busy Sunday afternoons, ATC are too busy to separate all the "Sunday fliers" in Class G air space. If you adhere to the letter of NPA 99 148, we will never be able to jump into Class E air space, because we will never be able to contact air traffic controllers, who don't care! A silly clause. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #59 March 17, 2008 CARS have always tried to restrict non-NOTAMed jumps into cottages, etc. Non-NOTAMed, "bandit" jumps away from a regular DZs have always been illegal. The new regulation does not change this. The primary goal was to eliminate surprises for IFR - read commercial airliners - traffic. Let's face it, scheduled airliners are the only aviation sector that generates enough profit to fund Transport Canada, Nav Canada and a million federal civil servants. __________________________________________________ Like I said, I never considered a jump into uncontrolled airspace, not over a built-up area (cottages for instance are usually on lakes) into a cottage where there is no large open-air assembly of people, to be a bandit jump. It was just a jump into uncontrolled airspace... That's how many of my water jumps have been done. And usually we don't go high enough to interfere with commercial air traffic - for one thing, if we did we'd end up getting up into controlled airspace again. Most of these jumps would be below 4000. I have no problem requiring clearance in controlled airspace, or for a 'demo', but if it's uncontrolled and not for a huge crowd or built-up area, it's uncontrolled to my mind.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aphid 0 #60 March 17, 2008 > but if it's uncontrolled and not for a huge crowd or > built-up area, it's uncontrolled to my mind. Rob... you jump in Ontario & probably occasionally in Quebec. If you ever leave "the centre of the known universe", you'll realize that most on-and-off-airport DZ's in the rest of Canada are in "uncontrolled airspace". We talk to ATC so that IFR traffic in-bound can be alerted and possibly re-routed, and also so that Centre can assist us with "unidentified VFR traffic" transiting through our areas. We've done it for years, and believe me, it is a tremendous benefit and has saved our asses on more than a few occasions. John PS: Why don't we take this back to the CSPA-chat list where it really belongs? (Not here on FaceBookMcJumpersDeeZee.com) J Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdD 1 #61 March 17, 2008 I think this is all a lot of BS. I'm a Canadian and I thought that the sky was falling in from reading some comments online until I read the NPA. None of the issues of regulation will seriously affect skydiving in Canada. If I'm wrong please correct me. http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegServ/Affairs/carac/NPAs/GOFR/Archives/jun00/2000209.htmLife is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 261 #62 March 17, 2008 QuoteI think this is all a lot of BS. I'm a Canadian and I thought that the sky was falling in from reading some comments online until I read the NPA.http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegServ/Affairs/carac/NPAs/GOFR/Archives/jun00/2000209.htm At least you cared enough to read up on things a little. In the beginning it was tough for people to get the word out and get people to understand the implications of the situation. There weren't many involved in the debate earlier, so there were few opinions to rely on. Some arguments carried more weight than others. Remember that nobody knew what TC was going to publish in the Gazette, or how it would vary from their old documents. TC wouldn't even discuss the matter with CSPA! So until about 3 days ago, nobody knew for sure what we'd have to fight. EDIT: I just noticed, the link you posted isn't to the actual NPA as published. That's a completely different NPA, about the 180 day repack cycle that has been in place a long time. (Except for some issues with demo.) So now I'm not sure if you are thinking about something totally different than NPA 99-148, or you just posted the wrong URL. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 261 #63 March 17, 2008 John's point is valid. If you are regularly jumping from higher altitudes in fully class G, it sure would be nice to have some contact with ATC if big planes aren't just going through class E somewhere else. To me near Toronto, Class G is something that exists only below 2200' or even just 700'. Skypuppy and I would be thinking about why the heck one would need to contact ATC for a hop and pop from 3000' (assuming it is class G) on a one-off basis. See and avoid VFR rules should be sufficient. You could fly aerobatics or fly a hang glider or do other things that aren't always easy to spot, in that same airspace. So for some aspects, the proposed class G rules do seem to go too far. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aphid 0 #64 March 18, 2008 Hi Peter, > why the heck one would need to contact ATC for a > hop and pop from 3000' (assuming it is class G) on > a one-off basis. One-off jumps (Demo's excepted) have not required an OC, a commercial aircraft, or even a commercial pilot. You simply get on a friends plane, open the door, and land at your (or your folks) cottage. I've checked with my TC inspector, and he assures me this is the case provided there is no money changing hands (beyond fuel & very limited expense-share). I believe the NPA is to cover active, licensed DropZones, with additional emphasis on the student activity. My earlier comments were all in response to the complaints raised by the McJumpers to that point. Nobody had brought up the student activities, yet. Now that they have, I'll be studying those portions a bit more. Although from a purely selfish motive - I don't run a DZ or own a school - I just have an OC and an aircraft so the folks at the local DZ have a bit of lifting-power, so this is the area where I would expect the DZO's to weigh-in strongly. Odd we still haven't heard from any of them. John Oh, I almost forgot... our OC indicates we must contact Vancouver Centre only as we break through 4000' MSL, and once again one minute prior to the exits at points above that altitude. Vernon is a busy little airport, and even ATC could care less about low-level activity here whether we interfere with each other or not. We do maintain a "listen" to Centre's frequency with the second COM in case they want to give us further information in the climb. And one last thing - on our first flight of the day, they quite often issue us one transponder code for the entire day. They do the same with the Glider tow-plane as well. J Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rayf 0 #65 March 25, 2008 there was actually a little write-up in the winnipeg sun about this on monday... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
packerboy 3 #66 March 26, 2008 I think this is all a lot of BS. I'm a Canadian and I thought that the sky was falling in from reading some comments online until I read the NPA. None of the issues of regulation will seriously affect skydiving in Canada. If I'm wrong please correct me. http://www.tc.gc.ca/...es/jun00/2000209.htm ------------------------------------------------------------ This is where I'm at. I'll just sit back and see what happens. My MP is pretty much useless in this case anyway since he only votes to break ties in the house (SOH Peter Milliken). If this bill splits the house, the sky really IS falling. Of course you never know whats going to happen with our current clusterf^&k of a federal government. -------------------------------------------------- In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MajorDad 0 #67 March 26, 2008 QuoteThis is where I'm at. I'll just sit back and see what happens. My MP is pretty much useless in this case anyway since he only votes to break ties in the house (SOH Peter Milliken). If this bill splits the house, the sky really IS falling. Of course you never know whats going to happen with our current clusterf^&k of a federal government. Have to disagree with you on this one on a couple of points. First off the federal government should no more regulate skydivers after they leave the aircraft any more than they should regulate scuba divers who use boats or skiers who use helicopters. While the NPA should not adversly affect most existing CSPA Operations, it may be impacted by overzealous Transport Canada Inspectors or may be a problem for new operations starting up. Either way it is leveraging the issue of protection of the First Jump Student into regulating a voluntary High Risk Sport. Transport Canada also seems to be heavy handed in their approach in that they are ignoring mandated Risk Assessments and minimizing dissent to portray concensus on the NPA as presented. CSPA has posted a couple of draft letters on the website at http://www.cspa.ca/en/npa.htm. These are currently being reviewed/discussed on the CPSA.Chat group but it is a start. The Important one is to be sent to Transport Canada as they have to collect and respond to the concerns raised by the industry and the public as part of this process. That is why there has been so much discussion on CSPA.chat so that the points being raised are based on fact and logic as opposed to emotion and BS. The other letter is for your MP. Even though in your case, he only votes in the case of a tie in the House, he can speak in caucus and in the back rooms. He also influences the House in that he calls on who speaks next. While I dont see the NPA as influencing my skydiving career as I stick to the BSR's and can always head to the states, if the NPA is adopted in its present form there is a potential to set up a regime that can erode the sport in Canada. It would be sad if the impact was only the larger centers could continue operation and all the smaller ones fade through attrition. If nothing else, CSPA is taking a stand and making it easy for Members to respond by providing letters with envelopes to send in. People who do nothing more than sign it and put it in the mailbox will help the effort. Please take the time to do at least that. Regards, Phil Major Dad CSPA D-579 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #68 March 26, 2008 QuoteMy MP is pretty much useless in this case anyway since he only votes to break ties in the house (SOH Peter Milliken). If this bill splits the house, the sky really IS falling... Is this a bill that will be voted on? Or is it simply a regulation that may ultimately come into force through an administrative procedure without a vote in the House of Commons?"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MajorDad 0 #69 March 26, 2008 QuoteIs this a bill that will be voted on? Or is it simply a regulation that may ultimately come into force through an administrative procedure without a vote in the House of Commons? The CSPA information on this can be found at http://www.cspa.ca/en/npa. In short, the NPA was published 15 March and interested parties have 60 days in which to respond to the designated person within Transport Canada (i.e. by mid May). Transport Canada has to respond to the points raised. Depending on the issues raised, the NPA can then be pulled completely (which is what CSPA wants), modified and re-published (re-doing step 1) or slightly modify it if there are no significant (to them) issues in Gazette 2. (Edited: this is authorized by the Order In Council Andrew talks about). Once it is in Gazette 2 it is a done deal and we have to live with the good, the bad and the ugly. Transport Canada was intending for this to come into full effect 1 Jan 2009. The intent of engaging MPs was to work that front as well. Regards Major Dad CSPA D-579 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #70 March 26, 2008 Quote Is this a bill that will be voted on? Or is it simply a regulation that may ultimately come into force through an administrative procedure without a vote in the House of Commons? It is a change to existing regs (the CARS) that will be passed by Order in Council. Effectively that means it needs Cabinet approval. For something like this I am pretty sure the Cabinet members let each other run their own departments. The minister of amateur sport could theoretically take issue, but he is typically way down the pecking order from the Minister of Transport, so that is unlikely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #71 April 7, 2008 QuoteThe CSPA information on this can be found at http://www.cspa.ca/en/npa It seems that there is a minor problem with this information in the following document: Regulatory Letter The letter says 'Dear Sir'. It actually seems that 'Dear Madam' would be more appropriate as the current Acting Chief is a woman, Lynn Doucet, according to the following site: Regulatory Affairs I'm sure the sexism is unintentional but it might be good to change the form letter as I'm sure being sexist isn't the best way to win favor with a woman in a position to make a decision about our sport."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
