proposed regulation of skydiving- Transport Canada

[smiles 0]

from cspa chat list by Tim Grech

Quote

It became apparent during the meetings last week that Transport Canada is
going to move forward with the proposed regulations outlined in NPA 9-148.---------
This issue is way to important to all of us to leave in the hands of the CSPA.-----------
In 1999 there was proposed regulation, which resulted in what is called NPA
99-148 (Notice of Proposed Amendment). Transport Canada lost interest and did not push the NPA forward.

In May 2005 a risk assessment exercise took
place and the recommendations made by the stakeholders who attended the meeting were ignored. Representatives of the CSPA, CAPS, Department of National Defense, the Alberta Coroners Office (every provincial Coroners
office was invited) and Transport Canada attended.

Suggestion is to write letter to Transport Canada and The Minister of Transportation opposing the proposed regulation.

I suppose there is nothing to loose- as presume all skydivers oppose the proposed regulation. Is it appropriate for all to copy/paste the same letter format and sign???

Could anyone help suggest ideas for my letter??
thanx


Also, discussion welcome that would answer why Transport Canada is pushing NPA now....
How do they propose to regulate??

SMiles

[Zeppo 0]

I got the same letter in my e-mail.

Some links here may help others understand the situation.

http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=a5067d74-58f0-497e-aa1e-c5760e4db329

And

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegServ/Affairs/carac/NPAs/GOFR/Archives/sep99/1999148.htm

Although I do understand that they are trying to make the sport safer, I don't think that the government are the best people to do that.

The particular incident that sparked this regulation was due to an Fatality at a non-CSPA dropzone.

I think that any CSPA member dropzone is quite capable of keeping our sport safe, it's these other dropzones that, technically, are not bound by any sort of rules when it comes to training, they can do as they wish.

Although I don't want the Government regulating our sport, I think we should do something about these non-CSPA DZ's that can cause harm to our image, or worse yet, preventable fatalities.

All those that are apposed to the regulation, should write a letter to the aforementioned individuals. I'm certain that with enough Canadian Voters speaking out against this regulation, it will quickly be set aside.

Considering that this particular matter was previously reviewed in May 2005, so simply rever to their previous decision, and let the sport remain self governed.

What goes up, must come DOWN!!!

[brettski74 0]

The canada.com link doesn't seem to work. I just get a page saying that the specified article was not found. I didn't look too much further than that.

There's a awful lot of text there on the Transport Canada page and it's difficult to locate all of the changes. Can someone identify specifically what are the points of major concern? From what I could ascertain from skimming over the text are the following changes:

- clarification of some rules for exhibition jumps that apply to aircraft also apply to parachutes/parachutists.
- addition of some text that seems largely lifted from the CSPA's BSRs published in PIM1.
- addition of some sections which state that parachute training and student parachuting should be conducted in accordance with rules and requirements set out by a recognised national body such as the CSPA.

Did I miss any?

Please don't flame for the following questions - I'm just trying to understand the nature of the concern here.

The first difference seems immaterial to me.

The second difference to me seems to be a reprinting of CSPA's BSRs into the CARs. It seems to me that it would have been better to say that parachuting activities should be conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations of a recognised national body, such as the CSPA, rather than reprinting their rules. After all, the BSRs are mandatory under the CSPA. Is this essentially the point here? Is the concern here that if BSRs are codified into CARs, then the rules may not be able to adjust to future changes in the nature of skydiving quickly enough?

The third point seems similar to how I understand CASA and the APF to co-exist from a legal perspective in Australia. This part seems to be explicitly saying that the industry will self-regulate student and training operations - it's simply deferring the rules to CSPA, USPA, CAPS or other approved national bodies.

If we're going to start a letter writing campaign, then it would be good to discuss logical reasons behind why the proposed changes are bad. For one thing, it will give us all more credibility. For another thing, the size of the skydiving community in Canada is a pitifully small proportion of the whole population. I find it difficult to believe that we'll get the appropriate attention on numbers alone. Hell - I don't even get a vote, since I'm just a permanent resident rather than a citizen.

Just my $0.02 worth.

[Zeppo 0]

Fixed the link.

You're right in that a complete understanding of the changes do need to be made, and I will be reading it tomorrow when I have more time. (I posted it for others information at this point)

My primary concern, at this point anyway, is that I do not want the government responsible for regulating the sport. This could too easily turn it into a political game to threaten our entire sport.

It's true that they could likely cause havoc for us anyway if they really wanted to, however, by giving them control, we are thereby allowing them to easily make changes (most likely to the detrement of the sport).

It may be from personal political beliefs, but the less the government is involved in anything the better...That said, I can't really argue with a single law that states that all parachuting activities must be conducted under the rules and regulations of the National Parachuting Association.

But I'm not a lawyer, and don't really know what I'm saying.

What goes up, must come DOWN!!!

[smiles 0]

Hey Zeppo,
thanks for your reply...
have you composed your own letter or did you copy/paste from Tim Grech letter??

Quote

The particular incident that sparked this regulation was due to an Fatality at a non-CSPA dropzone. I think that any CSPA member dropzone is quite capable of keeping our sport safe, it's these other dropzones that, technically, are not bound by any sort of rules when it comes to training, they can do as they wish.

So if a particular incident at a CAPS dz has sparked TC to regulate the sport......ignoring recommendations from stakeholders (CAPS, CSPA)
then I take it they didn't ignore recommendations from the Alberta Coroners Office???

Tim Grech quote:

Quote

In May 2005 a risk assessment exercise took
place and the recommendations made by the stakeholders who attended the meeting were ignored.
Representatives of the CSPA, CAPS, Department of
National Defense, the Alberta Coroners Office (every provincial Coroners office was invited) and Transport Canada attended.

Quote

Although I don't want the Government regulating our sport, I think we should do something about these non-CSPA DZ's that can cause harm to our image, or worse yet, preventable fatalities.

I skydive at Abbotsford BC dz
http://www.vancouver-skydiving.bc.ca/ that has been CAPS for many years. Hard to reason that the canadian association of professional skydivers be directly attributed to preventable fatalities, not the DZ operators.

CAPS representatives have worked closely with TC in B.C. for many years and they have not been training anything but Tandem and PFF first jumps for over 5 yrs.....so it may be argued that they are "safer" than a dz that trains static line or IAD first jumps.

Whatever, BC fallers are at high risk for incidents in BC...re: falling is a high risk job.
The government decided that falling had to be regulated...all fallers in the province now have to become certified before they can be hired. The cost of this regulation ended up back in the fallers pockets as they have to pay yearly now to be certified. The point: falling incidents have increased significantly since the government took over regulation. Does this indicate that the government regulation has improved the risk of incidents with certified safety training???????????

TC will be regulating our sport???
I don't believe it, but will be writing a letter regardless.

SMiles

[smiles 0]

Quote

There's a awful lot of text there on the Transport Canada page and it's difficult to locate all of the changes. Can someone identify specifically what are the points of major concern?

I'm quoting the info I have from cspa chat list:

Quote

Subject: Very important to Skydiving in Canada!
............apparently the document on TC website is not the current version of the document up for proposal. The NPA on the website is not the newest one. For some reason they allowed to read the new one but were not allowed to have a copy. The newly amended NPA does not mention CSPA, USPA or CAP's it simply says an association that has received written approval from the Minister. They have not set the criteria for approval.......Jenny Mayo

Quote

Subject: Very important to Skydiving in Canada!
Re: TC NPA 1999-148 & 23 pages of legal mumbo jumbo

I'm not sure what all the changes are, but here's my guess based on a
quick look, and going entirely by memory on the current air regs:

- First page mentions how some TC Standards were turned into
Regulations. Somehow the latter must have more weight.

- Most of it just seems to repeat the Special Flight Operations
standards we now use for jumps through controlled airspace or into
built up areas and crowds. Maybe something changed, but I didn't
notice it.

(The silly 120 day repack rule does currently apply to demo jumps,
even though the rest of the time we use 180. Transport Canada must
somehow feel afraid to be different than the USA...)

- The section "Chapter six - demonstration parachute descents" seems
new, with all its definitions of terms.

- I don't recall seeing the "unofficial spectator area" term before.
So now minimum distances have to be observed not only from official
spectator areas, but also anywhere people are congregating (eg,
private property adjacent to the airfield). Usually not an issue for
skydivers. (Eg, 100 ft vertical separation)

- "Event Management" may be new, that creates a sponsor responsible
for the overall conduct of the operation. (Or does this exist in the
rules already? There must be something related to who takes overall
responsibility.) I can see an issue where a demo team is hired by a
non-aviation event. The demo team doesn't want to take full
responsibility for crowd control, while the ground people, not
knowing aviation, don't want to take responsibility for planning
aviation operations. Who puts his hand up as the fall guy if
something goes wrong, when TC wants a single individual or
organization responsible?

- The demo jump rules will allow tandem demo jumps! (Cool!) But, only
with a licenced passenger. (Good.) A little confusing is that the
section re-iterates the requirement to use a main parachute of the
performance and wing loading characteristics of the parachute on
which the person qualified for their EJR. (CAPS qualifications
allowed too -- maybe they're easier -- like their online tests.) So
technically one might have to requalify on a different parachute than
before, if one only qualified on a VX74 or Parafoil 302. I hope the
"performance and wing loading characteristics" wouldn't be
interpreted to actually require qualifying using tandem jumps.

- I think the required signature of each participant in a demo is new.

- Someone will have to check whether the 603.37 stuff is the same as now. Most sounds familiar.

But the rules on jumps in controlled airspace (not at Special Aviation Events / demos) seem to be more strict than the exemptions we have now. I think the transponder requirements are increased.
Would have to check.

- The section on Parachute Training Unit Operations is entirely new.
Basically the government is just saying that to train students, you have to inform them of who you are, where you are doing it, and which
national organization's rules you will follow.

- Student Parachutist Operations: All students will have to be fully advised about the risk of injury and death, and sign a written declaration to that effect. Clearly everyone signs waivers already,
so this pretty much just formalizes it. (However, I wonder if it leads to liability in the sense that an injured student may say that
they were constantly told about the possibility of injury, but not given any true sense of the actual likelihoods of different outcomes,
and thus feel that TC rules were broken.)

Also, all students must be trained in accordance with the rules of the CSPA or CAPS or USPA etc. So any deviation from CSPA rules is
also a deviation from TC rules.
*****This is perhaps the "biggest thing" in the whole document.*******

Many of CSPAs rules are decent and followed most of the time, but if I break a rule a little bit, what are the legal consequences with Transport Canada? Note this doesn't refer to all jumping, just
student training.

When I say "rules" two paragraphs above, it is technically
"standards, procedures, and technical recommendations" in the TC
document. So not only would we have to follow CSPA rules, but also
their RECOMMENDATIONS. A question is: When CSPA's Technical
Recommendations include the word "should", would those items become
mandatory, or just recommended, as the CSPA intends?

(Eg, our PIM 1 Technical Recommendations pertaining to students say
that students "should" be dispatched and landed by official sunset --
Even though in general we have to sunset + 30 minutes. So would any
post-sunset student landing become a breach of TC regulations? What
are the penalties?)

Corrections and additions welcome -- this is just a first look at the
document.

Peter Chapman

SMiles

eustress. : a positive form of stress having a beneficial effect on health, motivation, performance, and emotional well-being.

[Zeppo 0]

I'll take the letter from Tim Grech, modify it for my own words and send it off.

I think that even a couple hundred skydivers opposing it, would likely outway the citizens supporting it. I think that it is only being pushed by a few people, and a tragic accident.

What's happening in BC is exactly what I don't want to have happen elsewhere. As I can only assume from past events, Government Involvement can only lead to disaster.

What goes up, must come DOWN!!!

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

What's happening in BC is exactly what I don't want to have happen elsewhere. As I can only assume from past events, Government Involvement can only lead to disaster.

What's happening in BC?

[Zeppo 0]

Quote

Quote

What's happening in BC is exactly what I don't want to have happen elsewhere. As I can only assume from past events, Government Involvement can only lead to disaster.

What's happening in BC?

According to smiles above
"Whatever, BC fallers are at high risk for incidents in BC...re: falling is a high risk job.
The government decided that falling had to be regulated...all fallers in the province now have to become certified before they can be hired. The cost of this regulation ended up back in the fallers pockets as they have to pay yearly now to be certified. The point: falling incidents have increased significantly since the government took over regulation. Does this indicate that the government regulation has improved the risk of incidents with certified safety training??????????? "

If this is what we should expect around Canada, then I think I'll move to the US.

What goes up, must come DOWN!!!

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Umm, I could be wrong but I think she is talking about lumberjacks.

[Zeppo 0]

Quote

Umm, I could be wrong but I think she is talking about lumberjacks.

Well then I'm just an idiot if that's the case . But it still shows that the government can't regulate shit.

What goes up, must come DOWN!!!